JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

These Revision Petitions have been filed by the Complainant against the impugned Order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal Nos. 910 and 911 of 2016, vide which the Appeals filed by the Respondents were allowed, the Order of the Ld. District Forum was set-aside and, the Complaints were dismissed.

2. The facts involved in these Revision Petitions are similar except for minor variations in the dates, consideration amounts and the Shop numbers.  Therefore these Revision Petitions are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2859 of 2018 is treated as the lead case, and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from the said Complaint.

3. The factual background is that the Respondents initiated a public auction for Shop No. 57, 1st Floor, Scheme Area No. 2 and 3, Part-1 on 04.10.2005, and the Complainant emerged as the successful bidder, wanting to acquire the property for his sports business. The bid of Rs. 6,21,000/- was accepted, and the Complainant deposited Rs. 1,55,250/- (25% of the bid) on the spot, with the remaining amount payable in 5 instalments. Due to default in paying the remaining instalments, the Complainant received a letter on 25.11.2013, notifying him of the due amount without specifying the sum. He deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- on 05.12.2013 and another Rs. 1,00,000/- on 27.12.2013 in cash. A subsequent letter on 15.01.2014 demanded the entire due amount by 31.01.2014. Despite the Complainant's attempts to deposit the amount, the officials did not accept it. The Complainant prepared a Demand Draft (DD) of Rs. 2,05,000/- to clear the liability, but the Respondents again did not accept it. The DD, sent via Registered Post with a letter, was not encashed. In a letter dated 16.04.2014, the Complainant requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and No Dues Certificate, receiving no response. Upon sending copies to the Principal Secretary, Local Bodies, Chandigarh, the Complainant learnt about an order dated 29.01.2015, allowing a one-time opportunity for plot regularization. The Complainant then approached the Respondents to accept the entitled amount, but they imposed additional penalties of 20% and 6%, calculating interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- which the Complainant deemed penal in nature, and against the rules. The DD submitted by the Complainant was wrongly withheld by the Respondents, and they wrongfully realised Rs. 1,87,803/- which the Complainant discovered after the amount was deposited. Dissatisfied with the wrongful excess payment taken by the Respondents, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Gurdaspur.

4. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 16.09.2016 allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents to pay to the Complainant Rs. 1,87,803/- along with interest @ 4% p.a. and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Respondents filed their Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 10.08.2017 allowed the Appeal, set-aside the Order of the Ld. District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

5. Challenging the impugned Order passed by the Ld. State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed raising the following grounds – 

b. That the penalty of Rs. 1,87,803/- collected from the Petitioner is totally arbitrary and illegal, and it amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents;

 6. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

7. The Ld. State Commission had reversed the decisions of the District Forum of allowing the complaint, by observing that the shops in question were acquired by the Complainants/Petitioners in a Public Auction against payment of the highest bid by the concerned Purchasers which undoubtedly was itself a commercial purpose, since the shops in any event were meant to be used for commercial purpose of carrying on business subsequently.  When the matter came up for hearing before this Commission on 12.12.2023, both sides were directed to assist the Commission on the question of law as to, “whether an auction purchaser of a commercial property can or cannot be regarded as a ‘Consumer’, where apart from delivery of possession of the property itself, no liabilities are imposed on the seller which happens to be public Authority.”

8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners in answering the aforesaid question of law relied upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rohit Chaudhary &Anr.  Vs. Vipul Limited, (2024) 1 SCC 8”, in which the complaint of the Appellants was allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court after setting aside the order of this Commission of dismissing the complaint in limini on the ground of maintainability by holding that the Appellants were not ”Consumers” as they were already carrying on their business for the purpose of running their livelihood, and therefore it could not be said that the property was being purchased by them exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self-employment.  This Commission had also opined that the market space booked by the Appellants was for earning profit and not for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self-employment. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in setting aside the Order of this Commission, and allowing the Appeal in “Rohit Chaudhary &Anr.  Vs. Vipul Limited, (2024) 1 SCC 8”, (supra) had observed inter alia –

“20. Thus, it would depend on facts and circumstances of each case.  There cannot be any defined formula with mathematical prevision to examine the claims for non-suiting the complainant on account of such complaint not falling within the definition of the expression “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1) (d).

21. Now turning our attention to the facts on hand, namely, perusal of the complaint filed before the Commission would indicate that the appellants have specifically pleaded that they were in search of office space “for their self-employment and to run their business and earn their livelihood”.

22. In the statement recorded on oath by the Commission, while hearing the maintainability of the complaint, the first appellant has stated that he was earlier engaged in the business of caustic soda as a dealer of M/s. Reliance Industries and presently engaged in the business of investment/ dealing in property.  He has nowhere stated that he had proposed to purchase the office space from the respondent for the purpose of either selling the same for higher price or the said property was being purchased as an investment for being sold in future, The statement of the appellant was that he was engaged in the business of investment/ dealing in property would not ipso facto suggest or indicate the property proposed to be purchased from the respondent was for commercial purpose.”

9. Reliance on the aforesaid decisions by the Petitioners/ Complainants is however, only superficially helpful to them. This is so because in “Rohit Chaudhary &Anr.  Vs. Vipul Limited, (2024) 1 SCC 8” (supra), the Complainants’ had entered into a transaction for purchasing the share of two persons in a commercial space in the Project, ‘Vipul World  Commercial’ situated at Gurugram, had made the payments, but were not intimated about delivery of possession of the office space unit allotted to them and due to such inaction of the Respondent in delivering possession of such space, the complaint had been filed.  In the present case, however, delivery of the commercial space to both the Complainants had admittedly been made, and the restricted prayers of the Complainants were for “refund of the amounts allegedly realised by the Respondent/ Improvement Trust subsequently”.  Furthermore, there was no element whatsoever of the commercial space having been purchased by the Complainants in “Rohit Chaudhary & Anr.  Vs. Vipul Limited, (2024) 1 SCC 8”, (supra) by way of any “public auction” much less from a “public Authority” which in the present case happens to be the Improvement Trust, Pathankot, Punjab.  

10. In these circumstances, this Commission finds no perversity or irregularity in the view taken by the Ld. State Commission, which had correctly appreciated the ratio in an earlier decision of this Commission in “Ashok Taya & Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, 1996 (1) CPC 114”, in which it had been held that in case of a plot purchased by the Complainant in Auction Sale, the transaction is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.  Similarly, in “Delhi Development Authority Vs. Parveen Kumar & Others, 2015 (2) CLT 76”, again this Commission had held that where a Flat/Plot is sold by  Statutory Authority by way of a Public Auction on “as is where is basis” and such Sale is not accompanied by an obligation to carry out any further development, the purchaser shall not be Consumer.

11. The Ld. State Commission had also rightly appreciated the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, 2009 CTJ 486 (SC) (CP)”, in which it had been observed inter alia –

“the decisions in Lucknow Development Authority and  Ghaziabad Development Authority make it clear that where a public Development Authority having invited applications for allotment of sites in a layout to be formed or for houses to be construction and delivered, fails to deliver possession by forming the layout of sites or by constructing the houses within the stipulated period the delay may amount to a deficiency in service by treating the development Authority as a service provider and the allottee as the consumer.  But where existing sites are out up for sale or lease by public auction by the owner, and the sale/ lease is confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, the resultant contract relates to sale or lease of immovable property.  There is no hiring or availing of service by the person bidding at the auction. Nor is the seller or lessor, a trader who sells or distributes goods.  The sale price or lease premium paid by the successful bidder of a site is the consideration for the sale or lease, and not consideration for any, service or for provision of any amenity or for sale of any goods.” 

12. The shops purchased in the present case by both the Petitioners were admittedly by way of Public Auction, and there was no further liability on the Respondent Authority (Improvement Trust) to provide any additional service or developmental work thereafter.  Consequently, the price paid by the complainant/petitioners by way of their successful bidding for the shops in question was for the sale/lease of the same and not consideration for any service or for provision of any amenity or for sale of any goods, on account of which, the facts of the present cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh Administration (supra), and consequently, this Commission finds no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Ld. State Commission.

13. These revisions petitions are consequently dismissed.

14. Parties to bear their own costs.

15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.