BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  368 of 2012  against CC  97/2008, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar

Between:

The Executive Engineer (Housing),

 The A.P. Housing Board,

Subedari, Hanmakonda,

Warangal district.                                       ***                         Appellant/

Opposite Party

                                                                   And

N. Aruna, W/o. Srinivas,

R/o. H.No.10-4-168,

Vavilalapally,

Karimnagar (Town & Dist)                          ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant

Counsel for the  Appellant :                        M/s. D. Ranganath Kumar

Counsel for the  Respondent:                      M/s.  V. Gourishankara Rao

CORAM:

                              SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

                              SRI  S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY,  THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)

***

1)                Aggrieved by the order in C.C. No. 97 of 2008 on the file of Dist. Forum, Karimnagar, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

2)                The brief facts  as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is the  successful bidder  in the auction conducted by the opposite party for sale of  shops/plots  near  A.P. Housing Bord Colony, Jagitial.  She was allotted plot No. C-35 on  payment of  25% of the amount  on various dates  amounting  to Rs. 1,20,000/-.   The complainant alleges that as she did not receive any confirmation letter from the opposite party she has not paid balance 75% of the amount.   In spite of several requests and the correspondence made  by her  the opposite party housing board did not send the confirmation letter to enable her to make payment of balance consideration nor  got the plot registered in her favour.  Hence this complaint   praying for direction to the opposite party to  issue allotment letter for payment of balance sale consideration and to get the plot registered together with compensation and costs.

3)                The  Appellant/opposite Party filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainant.   While admitting that the complainant was the successful bidder  in the auction held  for sale of  plot No. C-35, Jagitial  and remitted 25% of the auction amount  i.e., Rs. 1,20,000/- however failed to deposit balance 75% of the amount within the stipulated period of 90 days despite notice issued by registered post with acknowledgement.   The said notice was served on the complainant on  27.2.2007.   As per the terms if the successful bidder fails to deposit the balance 75% amount within 90 days  and another 90 days of extended period,  the allotment would be deemed to have been cancelled and  they have every right to forfeit the amount deposited.    There is no deficiency of service on its behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4)                The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced  i.e., Ex. A1 to A15  and Exs. B1 to B5  and the pleadings put forward  allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,20,000/-  to the complainant with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

5)                Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party housing board  preferred this appeal.

6)                The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs.  Amarjeet Singh  & Ors reported in II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC)   and contended that the consumer fora  under the Consumer Protection  have  no jurisdiction  to adjudicate the complaint  filed by the  auction purchaser/lessee against  the owner holding auction of site and set-aside the order of the National Commission. 

7)                The Apex Court in the said judgment observed as follows :

“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 complaint 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.”

Keeping in view the aforementioned judgment, we do not wish to discuss the merits of the case as the Apex Court had clearly laid that the complainant in the instant case  who participated in the auction of the site is not a ‘Consumer’.

8)                 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and  in the light of judgment of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court supra, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint is not maintainable before the  Consumer Fora and the order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be set-aside.     

9)                 In the result this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed with a liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate court in accordance with law.    The time spent  at the Consumer Fora shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.  No costs. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER 

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

*pnr                                                                               14/08/2013

UP LOAD – O.K