Sri. AshokKumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY<br /> <br /> 1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the Opposite Party to confirm the Auction Bid held on 24.11.1992 and further declare that the endorsement issued by the Opposite Party on 10.06.1993 rejecting the bid is null and void. The Complainant has sought further direction to the Opposite Party to receive the balance Auction amount of Rs.75% and execute necessary documents.<br /> <br /> 2. When the matter came up for admission on 14.06.2006, the learned counsel for the Complainant was directed to advance his arguments on maintainability. The learned counsel for the Complainant was provided with number of decisions in this respect and he was given an opportunity to submit his argument on this aspect. But, the learned counsel for the Complainant as well as Complainant remained absent, when the matter was taken for hearing on 19.06.2006.<br /> <br /> 3. Points for our consideration are as under-<br /> a. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint?<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. POINT NO.1 :- It is contended by the Complainant that the Opposite Party “MUDA” had notified about sale of certain sites by Public Auction on 24.11.1992 at 11.00 A.M. The Complainant was a participant, and a successful bidder in the Public Auction regarding site No.354. The Complainant offered highest bid for Rs.2,71,000=00 and immediately deposited an amount of Rs.68,000=00 (25% of the bid amount) under receipt No.3193 dated 24.11.1992. But, to the surprise of the Complainant, he received an endorsement dated 10.06.1993 that the Auction is not approved by the Opposite Party. Proper reason was not given by the Opposite Party for such Act. It is further contended that the Complainant filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.1048/1994 in the Court The Principal 1st Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Mysore, on 26.08.1994. But that suit was dismissed on the technical ground that proper notice was not issued under section 67 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act. The Complainant preferred R.A No.216/1999, and Appeal was also dismissed on the similar ground on 29.03.2005. Thereafter, the Complainant has filed this Complaint seeking the reliefs which are mentioned above.<br /> <br /> 5. It is clear from the contentions taken by the Complainant that the transaction between the parties is “Public Auction”. The Complainant is neither an Applicant nor an Allottee of a site as per Site Allotment Rules. In the following decisions, it is held that the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he is a purchaser in the Public Auction.<br /> <br /> 1) “H.U.D.A. OF CHANDIGARH & OTHERS –VS- NARENDER SINGH DOON & OTHERS” reported in 1994(2) CPJ page- 295.<br /> 2) “MAHABIR PRASAD –VS- D.D.A. & ANOTHER” reported in 1994(1) CPJ page-214.<br /> 3) “TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD –VS- R.SIVASUBRAMANIAYAM” reported in 1998(3) CPJ page-39 (NC).<br /> 4) “SHIELA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER –VS- NAINITAL LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS” reported in 1996(3) CPJ page-11 (NC).<br /> 5) “N.S.NAYAK –VS- BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY” reported in 1991(2) CPJ page-537 (KTK).<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above decisions, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. As per the case made out by the Complainant, the cause of action accrued to the Complainant on 10.06.1993 when a letter of repudiation was given by the Opposite Party. It is also admitted that the Complainant has filed a Civil Suit, and preferred Appeal thereon. In view of these facts, this Complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Complainant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. On this ground also this Complaint is not maintainable. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed as Complainant is not a “Consumer” and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this Order to Complainant.<br /> <br />