THE SOCIETY FOR CONSUMERS AND INVESTORS PROTECTION (SCIP) 118, LLND FLOOR, DDA SITE-1 NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110060, Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, C-13-14, SECTOR-6, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties on the maintainability of this case. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that this is a case of open auction. The plot was taken on 'as is where is basis'. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that under the circumstances, the complainants are not the consumers as per law laid down in UT Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and Ors. : 2009(4) SCC 660. Learned counsel for the opposite party invited our attention towards paras 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the said authority. He contended that under the circumstances, the present complaint is not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant invited our attention towards the orders of this Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and another vs. M/s. Suneja and Sons, revision petition No. 2951 decided on 18.8.2011 and Rajil Khod vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority through Estate Officer, Hisar, revision petition No. 729 of 2011 decided on 18.11.2011 wherein it was held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the above said authority is not applicable. This Commission also referred two Supreme Court authorities in H.U.D.A. & Anr. Vs. Satish Hans : 2009(7) SCC 282 and Madan Kumar Singh vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur IV : (2009) SCPJ 3 (SC) decided on 29.4.2009 and 7.8.2000, respectively. In the said cases, the Apex court did not set aside the orders of this Commission on the ground that the complainant being an auction purchaser could not at all qualify as a consumer. However, the Apex Court remanded the case back to this Commission.

(2.) IN view of this discussion, the complainants have produced enough material for admission of this case. The case is, therefore, admitted but it is made clear that the above said question requires investigation and evidence. The same question cannot be disposed of at this initial stage whether the petitioner is a consumer for the above said reason or whether this is a commercial transaction or a transaction for self employment is being kept open. This will be decided at the final stage. The case is, In view of this discussion, the complainants have produced enough material for admission of this case. The case is, therefore, admitted but it is made clear that the above said question requires investigation and evidence. The same question cannot be disposed of at this initial stage whether the petitioner is a consumer for the above said reason or whether this is a commercial transaction or a transaction for self employment is being kept open. This will be decided at the final stage. The case is, therefore, admitted and the opposite party is directed to file counter till 6.3.2013.