Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Appellants raised preliminary objection on the admissibility of the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant (Respondent herein) is not a ‘Consumer’ as she had taken the site from the Appellants in auction which was done by the Appellants on ‘as is where is’ basis and on the condition that the “authority will not be responsible for leveling the site or removing the structures if any thereon.” He cited two Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his arguments that auction purchaser of a site or unit cannot be covered under Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he would not be a ‘Consumer’. The reasoning is that the sites are auctioned on the basis of “as is where is”. He cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 660 and in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Raghu Nath Gupta & Ors. (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 197 in support of his arguments. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also made his submission holding that the Order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’) dated 27.09.2019 is in order and that there was a promise of amenities to be provided as contained in the terms and conditions of the auction wherein under Clause-7 ‘Possession of Site’, it has been mentioned that “The sites put to auction shall be ready for possession in terms of development of basic amenities and the possession of these shall be handed over to the successful bidders within a period of 90 days from issue of allotment letter.” Since the basic amenities were not provided, there was an element of deficiency of service on the part of the Appellants and hence, covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have perused the record. It is seen that the Appellants upon notice did appear and sought time to file Reply to the Complaint but despite sufficient opportunities they failed to file their Reply and accordingly, the defense of the Opposite Parties was struck off vide Order dated 09.07.2019. Definitely, the submission and objection now raised by the Appellants at the time of filing of this Appeal was not taken at the time when they appeared before the State Commission and chose not to file any Reply or take any objection. However, on hearing the arguments and perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that an opportunity be provided to the Appellants/Opposite Parties to be present before the State Commission and argue their case which shall hear the same on (a) maintainability of the Complaint and (b) if the same is found to be maintainable, hear the same on merits. Accordingly, the Appeal is remanded to the State Commission with the above observations subject to a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in the legal aid fund of the State Commission and Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant for meeting her litigation expenses. The Order of the State Commission dated 27.09.2019 is set aside. Considering that this Complaint is of 2019, we expect the State Commission to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within six months. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 19.11.2024. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. | 
