Commissioner Rajkot Municipal Corporation Rajkot vs Hemang H Vasawada

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2006 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in complaint case no. 28 of 2005. By this order, the State Commission held that the complainant/respondent in this petition who purchased a plot of land sold in an open auction by the opposite party (petitioner in this petition) was a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the term under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'')

WE have heard Mr. Jatin Zaveri, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent/complainant was directed to be proceeded against ex parte by this Commission''s order dated 25.07.2011 because of his non-appearance/non-representation on that date despite having been duly served with notice.

A short point is involved in this petition. It is, in fact, difficult to see how the State Commission could take the view that it did despite specific preliminary objection by the petitioner that the buyer of the plot of land in an open auction could not claim the status of a ''consumer'' under section 2(i)(d) of the Act. Mr. Zaveri has drawn our attention to various judgments of the Apex Court and, in particular, that in U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v Amarjeet Singh and Others [(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 660 ] and of this Commission in U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v Smt. Urmila Gupta [(2002) CPJ 131 (NC)] and AmritsarImprovement Trust v Sanjay Kumar [(2002) CPJ 107 (NC)]. He also furnished a copy of the terms and conditions of the auction of the plot of land in question by the petitioner Municipal Corporation.

FROM a reading of the terms and conditions, it is quite clear that the Municipal Corporation did not assure to provide any developmental service in auctioning of some plots of land on 30.11.1994, one of which was purchased by the complainant/respondent. Thus, it was a case of transaction in immovable property with no element of service involved therein. Hence, the relationship between the petitioner/Municipal Corporation and the buyer/respondent could not be that of a ''service provider'' and ''consumer'' under the provisions of the Act. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the UT Chandigarh case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. It is also undisputed that the respondent did not fulfil the conditions regarding payment of price of the plot in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.