CANARA BANK V/S OM PRAKASH - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/4532/2009

OM PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K.G. MISHRA

20 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4532 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 04/11/2009 in Appeal No. 721/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. OM PRAKASHR/0 WZ-1580, Rani BaghNew Delhi - 110034						...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. CANARA BANK242,Kaisons House, Chandni Chowk FatehpuriDelhi - 110006						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MR. K.G. MISHRA

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 20 Jan 2010

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner in an auction of the property deposited 10% bid price. However, the purchase was not confirmed within specified period and the Complainant sought refund. The Opposite Party asked Complainant to deposit 25% of the balance amount. Accordingly, the Petitioner had approached the District Forum. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court in UT Chandigarh Administration and another V/s. Amarjeet Singh and others II(29)SLT 736 = 2009(2) Supreme Court Today Page 650. The Complainant had filed appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed after relying on the judgement of the Apex Court referred to above. The matter is covered by the judgement of the Apex Court referred to by two fora below. The Apex Court has laid down in Para 14 as under:- With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted from sites to be formed), the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a trader or service provider and the grievance does not relate to any matter in regard which a compliant can be filed. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the Fora under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites. (emphasis added) Thus, the Complainant is not a consumer and the Consumer Court has no jurisdiction in such matters. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER