Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The case of the Complainant, briefly narrated, is that, he purchased the schedule property through an auction sale in the year 2014.  The OP issued necessary Sale Certificate in favour of the Complainant on 02-01-2015.  It is the allegation of the  Complainant that in spite of completion of sale process, the bank has not yet delivered physical possession of the property in question.  As his vigorous endeavour in this regard went in vain, the Complainant filed this case.

Per contra case of the OP Nos. 1&2 is that the Complainant has chosen a wrong Forum for ventilation of his grievance.  According to these OPs, the Complainant ought to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal instead of initiating this complaint case.  Further case of the OPs is that the property was handed over to the Complainant on ‘As is where basis’.  The Complainant was duly satisfied with such delivery of possession to him and there was no complaint thereabout from the Complainant at all.  After a month since the date of possession being given to the Complainant, he approached the Bank intimating that he was obstructed from enjoying peaceful possession of the property in question by the erstwhile owners of the said property.  Accordingly, the OPs approached the District Magistrate, Malda u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for providing police assistance to the Complainant.  In turn, the DM, Malda asked the SP, Malda to provide adequate police assistance to the Complainant.  Subsequently, as per the advice of SP, Malda, the Bank wrote a letter requesting the ADM, Malda to issue a letter directly to the SP,Malda to come to the aid of the Complainant.  The Bank also followed up the matter with the SP, Malda on numerous occasions.  The OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part, as alleged.

Points for consideration

1.Whether the complaint case is maintainable?

2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

3.Whether the Complainant deserves any relief?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration and Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Ors.  (2009) 4 SCC 660 has been pleased to held that in public auction of existing land sites, purchaser/lessee is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Thus, we find that the complaint case is not maintainable before this Commission.

Point Nos. 2&3:

While the position of law is well defined in this matter, we afraid, it would not be appropriate for us to deal with the merit of the case.

Thus, the instant complaint case is dismissed.

We, however, accord due liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law for remedy.