Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/11

Pankaj Mohindroo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerece - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sh. Nitish K. Vasudeva, Advocate

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. :  11 of 19.02.2016

                                      Date of decision                : 18.07.2016

 

Pankaj Mohindroo, son of Sh. Krishan Pal Mohindroo, resident of Village & P.O. Talwara, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. 

                                                                                     ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Railway Road, Nangal Township, Punjab, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                    ....Opposite Party

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Neeraj Mohindroo, Special Power of Attorney for complainant 

Sh. N.S.Heera Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party   

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

Sh. Pankaj Mohindroo has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to O.P:-

i)       To direct the O.P .to pay interest on Rs.6,88,000/- @ 18% per annum compounded monthly for a period from 25.3.2013 to 10.01.2015.     

ii)      To direct the O.P. to pay Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant towards reimbursement of rent for 22 months for Rs.5000/- per month,

iii)     To direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac to the complainant for fees paid to the advocates/counsels and other expenses incurred by him for defending the cases before DRT-II, Chandigarh and the Civil Court (Sr. Divn), Anandpur Sahib.

 iv)    To direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant to compensate the amount spent for settling the dispute with Mr. Narender Pal.

v)      To direct the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lacs to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment cause to him and his family on account of deficiency in service of the bank.

vi)     To direct the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lacs to the complainant towards loss of his reputation and goodwill in the public at large including but not limited to the friends and relatives.

 

2.                  In brief, the case of the complainant is that for his own use and occupation had purchased residential house  0K-11 Marla being 8/15 share of land 01 K-01 Marla, Khewat/Khatoni 421/564, Khasra No.931, situated at VPO Talwara, HB No.279 as per jamabandi 2001-02 from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.6,88,000/- which has been paid to the opposite party and he availed of the services for a consideration, which has been paid to the opposite party. Thus, he is a consumer. In exercise of its power under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Intersts Act, 2002 (SARFAESI, 2002), the O.P. bank issued advertisement in newspaper for sale through e auction of residential house measuring 11 Marlas situated at VPO Talwara.“Residential House 0 K- 11 being 8/15 share of land 01 K-01 marla Khewat/Khatoni 421/564, Khasra No.931, situated at VPO Talwara HB No.279, as per jamabandi 2001-02”.

          In the advertisement issued by the bank, it was stated that the bank had taken possession of the said property pursuant to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. The reserve price of the property was Rs.6,82,400/- and 10% of the reserve price i.e. Rs.68,240/- was to be deposited with the bank on or before 09.03.2013 to be eligible to participate in the e auction. He accordingly, deposited earnest money of Rs.68,240/- with the bank on 08.03.2013. The e auction took place on 12.3.2013 in which he was declared as the highest successful bidder of the property for a price of Rs.6,88,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of e auction, he further deposited Rs.1,04,000/- on 13.3.2013 with the O.P. Bank. Thus, 25% of the bid amount stood deposited with the O.P. bank by 13.3.2013. As per terms and conditions of e auction, he was to deposit the balance 75% amount i.e. Rs.5,15,760/- within 15 days after the date of e auction. He accordingly, deposited this amount with the bank on 25.3.2013, which was within the stipulated period of 15 days. After having received the full amount, the bank was required to hand over physical possession of the property to him. On 25.3.2013 and 4.4.2013, the bank officials went to the site of the property to handover its physical possession to him. But before it could be done, the borrower’s brother Mr. Narender Kumar along with other villagers gathered and raised objection that the residential house which is under possession of the bank is not built on Khasra No. 931 and thus the concerned revenue officials from revenue department should be called for identifying Khasra No.931. The bank officials thus could not ascertain the correct description of the property mortgaged with the bank and they came back without delivering the physical possession of the property to him and stated that they would take up the matter with regional office. He became panicky as he had given full consideration for the property by borrowing from relatives and friends. He wrote a letter to the bank on 08.04.2013 for giving him physical possession of the property without any hindrance. He sent an e mail also to the O.P. Bank to get clear demarcation of the property and handover the possession of the same without any hindrance along with site plan. Thereafter, the borrower filed an application under section 17of SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh and challenged the auction of the bank in taking over and selling the property. This application was dismissed by the Ld. DRT vide order dated 06.02.2014. In this order, the learned DRT directed the bank to handover peaceful possession of the property to him herein. The relevant text of the order is reproduced here below:-

               “Since the property was sold as per mortgaged area of 11 marla and now the auction purchaser who is claiming his peaceful possession should not be delayed and let the same be provided to the auction purchaser”.

                   It is further stated that he had to engage counsel to appear and defend his case before the leaned DRT because he had been arrayed as O.P. in the matter. Moreover, the stakes and his risk investment was very high as he had paid the full amount of consideration to the bank by borrowing it from friends and relatives. Since the demarcation of the property was not clear; the bank was unable to handover the physical possession. This gave leverage to the disputing brother of the borrower, Mr. Narender Pal, who filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Anandpur Sahib, and obtained the order of status quo regarding interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. He was also arrayed as O.P. No.2 and his brother Mr. Manoj was arrayed as O.P. No.1 in the suit. He and his brother were unnecessarily dragged in litigation without any fault of theirs. Ultimately, when the Kanoongo measured the area, it turned out that the property under possession of the bank contained 6- 1/2 marla of Khasra No.930 belonging to Mr. Narender Pal and 4-1/2 marla of Khasra No.931 belonging to the borrower Mr. Pawan Kumar. This means that the whole area of 11 Marla which was under possession and under locks of bank did not fall under Khasra No.931 which was mentioned in the description of property in the sale notice and was shown to the complainant. It is further stated that faced with this situation in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Anandpur Sahib, he had to enter into an agreement with Mr. Narender Pal for exchanging the concerned area of Khasra No.930 and Khasra No.931 so that the land of the residential house under possession and lock of the bank become undisputed. The said civil suit was disposed off in terms of the above agreement dated 17.09.2014. He had to engage counsel and incurred other expenses for defending the said suit and also had to pay money to Narnder Pal for settling the dispute. Whereas, it was the bounded duty of the bank to have clear title of the property with it, but he had to get the matter settled with Mr. Narender Pal, in the court with his own efforts and means, both financial and others. The bank still could not give possession to him because the personal belongings of the borrower were lying in the said residential property. The bank was insisting that he should take over the property along with the personal belongings of the borrower, which was not acceptable to him. he wanted complete vacant and peaceful possession of the property. It is further stated that the bank on the instructions its law department vide email dated 16.12.2014 took on rent some other premises to shift the personal belongings of the borrower. The bank then shifted the personal belongings of the borrower and handed over vacant possession of the property on 10.1.2015 to him and issued the sale certificate to him on the same date i.e. 10.01.2015. The bank was required to handover and peaceful possession of the residential house purchased in auction on 25.03.2013 when the bank received full and final consideration, but the possession was actually given 10.01.2015 thus causing a delay of about 22 months. He had purchased the property for the purpose of his own residence as he was living in a small rented accommodation along with his family. But because the bank did not hand over the physical possession, he had to continue to stay in the rented accommodation for which, he was paying rent of Rs.5000/- per month. The bank is liable to reimburse the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to him being rent paid by him for 22 months for Rs.5000/- per month. The bank retained and enjoyed the amount of Rs.6,88,000/- paid by him for whole period of delay, whereas he did not receive any benefit in lieu thereof over all this period of delay.  He was rather compelled to stay in a small rented accommodation of about 100 Sq. Yds as against the 330 sq. yds house which he had purchased in auction from the bank. The bank is, therefore, liable to pay interests @ 18% per annum compoundable on monthly basis on Rs.6,88,000/-. The bank is liable to compensate and to pay him an amount of Rs.1Lac for the fees paid to the advocates/counsels and other expenses incurred in defending the cases before DRT and the civil court. The bank is further liable to compensate and pay to him an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid for settling the dispute with Mr. Narender Pal. The Opposite party was required to ensure the handing over vacant physical possession of the said property (house) to him free from all encumbrances immediately upon receipt of the part consideration from him but they did not do so even upon receipt of the full consideration. The said action of the opposite party was certainly a fault, imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which was required to be maintained by the opposite party and thus, the same amounts to deficiency in service. Further, the goods supplied i.e. the property was also defective in as much as the opposite party was certainly at fault, imperfection, shortcoming is not ensuring that the said goods i.e. the vacant physical possession of the said property (house) was not handed over to him free from all encumbrances, as is required of the opposite party. It is further stated that he and his family had to undergo intense stress and trauma during the whole period from 25.3.2012 to 10.1.2015 and had to run from pillar to post on account of the supply of defective goods and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and on account of their indulgence in unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.                               

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version by taking preliminary objections;  that complaint is not maintainable; that complainant is not consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act.; that in the present case, the scrutiny of lot of evidence and documents is required, the proper forum is a civil Court; that the present complaint has been filed falsely, unnecessarily and without any cause of action and only with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party; that the O.P. was not personally responsible delay in delivering the possession to the complainant, but it was all due to the complainant who refused to take the possession on “AS IS WHERE IS and “AS IS WHAT IS” basis as specifically written in the terms and conditions laid down in sale notice, but he insisted to built a partition wall first as a pre condition to which the O.P. was not capable. The sale certificate was also given but he refused to receive it, then the O.P. sent it by Regd. Post dated 15.5.2013; that there were clear cut terms and conditions as laid down in the sale notice annexure C1 which are reproduced as follows:-

i)       The e-auction is being held on “AS IS WHERE IS”
 and AS IS WHAT IS BASIS”

ii)      To the best of knowledge and information of the authorized officer, there is no encumbrances on any property. However, the intending bidders should make their own independent inquires regarding the encumbrance, title of the property put on auction and claims/rights/dues/effecting the property, prior to submitting their bid the e auction advertisement does not constitute and will not be deemed to constitute any commitment or any representation of the bank. The property is being sold with all the existing and future encumbrances whether known or unknown to the bank. The authorized officer/secured creditor shall not be responsible in any way for any third party claims/rights/dues.

iii)     It shall be the responsibility of the bidder to inspect and satisfy themselves about the asset and specification before submitting the bid. The inspection of property put on auction will be permitted to the interested bidders at sights from 11.00 A.M to 3.00 P.M. during the working days from the date of publication to the last date of submitting documents and EMD.

That the complainant has not come in this Forum with clean hands. He has tried to misguide this Forum by tendering fake/forged and false rent receipts showing the address house No. 390, Phase I-B, Shawalik Avenue, Naya Nangal.  The complainant never resided at the above address. In all the documents enclosed by the complainant himself, the address has been referred as 27, Main Market, Nangal. Such as on bank receipt dated 08.03.2013, Annexure C2,  E- auction bid form, declaration where it was admitted that he has read the entire terms and conditions of sale understood them fully, application of complainant dated 08.04.2013 annexure C6, E mail dated 12.4.2014 of complainant, agreement dated 11.9.2014, Annexure C9, Sale certificate dated 10.01.2015, Annexure C12, copy of order passed by Ld. Court of A.C.J. (Sr. Divn), Anandpur Sahib. Thus, on the perusal of these documents, it is clear that the complainant has filed false, forged receipts with ulterior motive to deceit and misguide this learned court; that the complainant is also liable for criminal action for committing cheating with this Forum as he intentionally misstated the facts in his complaint regarding orders of the learned DRT. No such orders were ever passed by the learned DRT as quoted within inverted commas. On merits, it is stated that M/s Aman Trading Company through its Prop. Sh. Pawan Kumar, had availed a loan facility of Rs.5.10 Lacs in the year 2008 from the O.P. bank against registered mortgage deed, dated 23.1.2008 of land 0K-11 Marla situated at Village Talwara, Tehsil Nangal along with residential house built thereon. The borrower failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan and his account became N.P.A. After completing the required legal formalities, the O.P. bank moved an application under section 14 of SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Roopnagar, which was allowed the the learned court was pleased to pass orders dated 15.2.2011 with direction to Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Nangal to provide the delivery of peaceful possession to the secured creditor with the assistance of police help. The bank took over the physical possession on 5.5.2011 in the presence of Executive Magistrate and police officials and also prepared inventory and panchnama of the moveable assets. The possession notice and copy of inventory along with panchnama were duly sent to the borrower through registered post. Thereafter, the O.P. bank duly affixed sale notice dated 4.2.2013 on the spot and also got published in two leading daily newspapers. The bank ultimately sold the property in auction to the complainant being highest bidder for Rs.6,88 Lacs on 12.3.2013 and also confirmed the same in favour of the complainant as auction purchaser.

It is admitted that the complainant purchased land 0K-11M along with construction raised thereon for an amount of Rs.6,88 Lacs. The e auction was being held on ‘AS IS WHERE IS “AND” AS IS WHAT IS BASIS” . The sale through auction is not covered under the definition of availing services and thus the complainant also does not come within the definition of a consumer. Anyhow, the above noted sale notice also contained terms and conditions which are part of the sale notice and for the sake of brevity it has not been referred in detail here. It is further stated that though after depositing the full auction amount, the possession was to be delivered to the auction purchaser, but no specific date for delivering the possession was given. The officials of the O.P. many a times asked the complainant to take the possession as per terms and conditions but he refused and insisted that partition wall be built as a pre condition, whereas, the O.P. was not authorize to built a wall. The sale certificate was also given but he refused to receive the same then the O.P. sent it by registered post dated 15.5.2013. There were reports coming to the O.P. bank that the borrower are raising threats that in case O.P. tried to give physical possession then they would meet with dire consequences. In order to verify the fact, the bank official visited the site on 4.4.2013 for spot inspection. On seeing the bank officials, the brother of the borrower gathered his supporters at the sight and created a scene and tried to take law into their hands and they were determined to raise quarrel. On seeing the danger of breach of peace and to avoid any untoward incident, the officials returned back. On one side the relations of the borrower were creating hindrances and on the other side Mr. Neeraj Mohindroo, who is brother of the complainant was making undue pressure on the then Branch Manager of O.P. and also on the Zonal office and raising threats to the officials. In the same time, the complainant himself was also a daily visitor and causing disturbance in day today functioning of the bank by raising his voice loudly. The Sr. Manager e mailed the letter to Mr. Neeraj Mohindroo informing him that he would pursue the matter with Regional office for further instructions. It is denied that the bank officials thus could not ascertain the correct description of the property mortgaged with the bank and they came back without delivering the physical possession of the property to the complainant. The O.P. received the e mail from Mr. Neeraj Mohindroo. The O.P. made sincere efforts to deliver the possession to the complainant and had written letters to the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate to provide assistance in taking over peaceful possession on 24.4.2013, 22.5.2013, 08.07.2013 and also written a letter on 10.01.2015 to the borrower in this regard. The borrower filed an application before the DRT-II, Chandigarh on 03.04.2013 challenging the act of the O.P. in taking possession which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2014. So during the pendency of this case, it was not feasible for the O.P.  to deliver possession to the complainant. Anyhow, it is wrongly alleged that in this order the learned DRT has directed the bank to handover peaceful possession of the property to the complainant. The complainant had intentionally mislead this Forum and misstated the relevant text of the order which was reproduced by the complainant within inverted commas. The complainant had tried to mislead and cheat this Forum by quoting false text of the order and for which he is liable for criminal action. Since the demarcation of the property was not clear, the bank as unable to handover the physical possession. The O.P. was having no knowledge regarding pendency of civil suit at Anandpur Sahib, Court as the O.P. was not arrayed as a party in that case. The complainant himself had disclosed this fact to the O.P. later on stating that the learned court has passed orders to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property. As per record produced by the complainant, it is evident that the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.09.2014. The property measuring 0 K-11 M was i.e. 8/15 share out of land 1 K – 1 M in khasra No.931 and the same land was mortgaged with the bank vide registered mortgaged deed dated 23.01.2008 and also shown in N.E. certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Nangal on 11.1.2008 and which was also observed in the order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the DRT Tribunal. The alleged agreement is also false, frivolous and fake. In the sale certificate dated 10.01.2015, the description of the immovable property was also referred in khasra No.931 and the same was received by the complainant. The title of the property was clear but due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of O.P., the possession could not be given early. It is further stated that the complainant has taken the possession. The O.P. never insisted the complainant to take over the property along with the belongings of the borrower as alleged. The bank was required to handover the vacant and peaceful possession on 25.3.2013. The O.P. was ready to deliver the possession as per the terms and conditions but the complainant refused. Anyhow, it is correct that the complainant finally took possession on 10.01.2015. The rent receipts has been falsely prepared with ulterior motive to extract amount in illegal manner. Rest of the paras

4.                         The learned counsel for the complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the O.P. taking preliminary objections; it is wrong that complainant does not come within the definition of consumer. As stated in the complaint, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986. The opposite party is a known service provider and one of the largest institutions providing service to various consumers. Once the opposite party is a know player in the field of service providers,  then it cannot take up the plea that it is not a service provider or that the complainant has not availed of its service or that complainant is not a consumer;  it is wrong that the complainant has filed the complaint falsely and unnecessarily or without any cause of action or with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party. Since the opposite party has rendered deficient service as such the present complaint has been instituted seeking redressal for grievance of the complainant. it is denied that the opposite party was not personally responsible for causing delay in delivering the possession to the complainant or that the complainant refused to take the possession. A perusal of documents submitted by the opposite party, especially the possession notice dated 18.06.2010, when read in conjunction with the letters dated 24.4.2013 and dated 8.5.2014 written by the opposite party to the Tehsildar and the District Magistrate, respectively and further read in conjunction with sale notice and the reply/written version filed by the opposite party leaves, no manner of doubt that the entire exercise was a farce and in fact the opposite party never had the possession with it as was claimed before the Learned DRT as well as before the complainant and public at large while proceeding to sell the said property; that the O.P. claimed to be in actual physical possession of the property before offering the same for sale as is mandatory under the provisions of SARFEASI Act, 2002. However, it was never in actual physical possession of the same and rather even the description of the property as per possession notice, sale notice and the sale certificate was totally different. This shows the malafide intent of the opposite party and demonstrates that opposite party has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The opposite party has annexed site plan which is again at variance with the aforesaid documents referred above but is also at variance with the site plan annexed with the sale certificate/registered sale deed as was provided by the opposite party to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant insisted for any partitioned wall or refused to receive the sale certificate. Since the opposite party was selling 11 marlas land with construction thereon, as such, it was but natural for any purchaser/consumer to insist upon the demarcation of the area sold to the purchaser/consumer and it is for this precise reason, the complainant had asked the opposite party to demarcate, identify and hand over the vacant/physical possession of the said property free from all encumbrances. The bank can only sell the property, over which the encumbrance is only that of the bank and which is free from all other encumbrances. It was the intent and desire of the complainant to get actual vacant and peaceful physical possession of the property, which the complainant purchased from the opposite party, free from all the encumbrances. Once the opposite party sells the property at the market value, it is not open to the opposite party to take refuge under the plea of AS IS WHERE IS and AS IS WHAT IS and the opposite party is under the obligation to provide the property free from any encumbrance, dispute or litigation. Be that as it may, since it was clearly understood between both the parties that the complainant wanted to purchase the property free from all encumbrances and dispute and since the opposite party also agreed to the same, as is evident from the subsequent conduct, the opposite party is stopped from raising the said plea.   In fact by admitting that it was due to the circumstances beyond control of the opposite party in providing demarcation and possession of the property to the complainant, the opposite party has not only admitted its deficiency in service but has rather admitted that it proceeded with an intent to cheat at the time it expressed its desire to sell the property and induced the gullible purchaser/consumers including the complainant, since the OP indulged in criminal offences, as such the complainant shall separately proceed against the OP for initiating criminal proceeding; that as it may the fraudulent inducement and deficiency in service and the intent of the opposite party to cheat and is writ large. Once there is recital that there  no encumbrance on the property, the clause reciting the that the property is being sold with all the existing future encumbrances is totally superfluous and redundant and a mere eye wash, the same cannot be absolved the opposite party of its liability of rendering deficient service or on cheating the gullible/public/consumers like the complainant; it is denied that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands or has tried to misguide this Forum or has tendered any fake/fraud or false rent receipts or that the complainant never resident of House No.390, Phase IB, Shiwalik Avenue Naya Nangal. It is pertinent to mention here that since the house No.390, Phase IB, Shivalik Avenue Naya Nangal was a rented accommodation and since 27, Main Market Nangal is a shop wherein complainant spends most of his time being the place of work, as such, the said address was normally furnished by the complainant as his address. Mentioning of the place of work as the address for correspondence is not a crime and is an accepted norm and the same does not render the residential address of the complainant fake, rather it is the opposite party which has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has submitted documents which are at variance as has already highlighted; It is denied that complainant is liable for criminal action or that he has intentionally misstated the facts regarding orders of DRT. On merits, the learned counsel for complainant has reiterated the facts already mentioned in preliminary objections of the rejoinder and prayed that in the interest of justice and equity the present complaint kindly be allowed with costs.

5.                          On being called upon to do so, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C17 & photocopies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 and closed the evidence. On the other hand,  the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar Sachdeva, Sr. Manager, Ex. OP1/A & photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-22 and closed the evidence.

6.                          We have heard Sh. Neeraj Mohindroo, Special Power of Attorney for the complainant and learned counsel for the O.P. and also gone through record including written arguments filed by Special Power of Attorney for the complainant.

7.                          At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that before considering the merit of the case, the Bench has to decide the maintainability of the instant compliant before this Forum. He further argued that admittedly complainant purchased the property in question through e auction. From the perusal of the terms and conditions mentioned in public notice for E auction for sale of moveable and immovable properties Ex.C1. it is apparent that in term No.1, it is clearly mentioned that the e auction is being held on “ AS IS WHERE IS and “AS IS WHAT IS BASIS”. Further in term no.2 it is mentioned that to the best of knowledge and information of the authorized officer, there is no encumbrance on any property. However, the intending bidders should make their own independent inquiries regarding the encumbrances, title of property/ies put on auction and claims/rights/dues/effecting the property, prior to submitting their bid. He further argued that in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and others Vs Amarjeet Singh and others 2009  CTJ 486 (Surpeme Court) (CP), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where existing sites are put up for sale or lease by public auction by the owner, and the sale/lease is confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, the resultant contract relates to sale or lease of immovable property- There is no hiring or availing of services by the person bidding at the auction nor is the seller or the lesser a trader who sells or distributes goods. Sale price or lease premium paid by the successful bidder of a site, is the consideration for the sale or lease and not a consideration for any service or for provision of any amenity or for sale of any goods. It is further held that before bidding in the auction, the bidder knows or is in a position to ascertain the condition and situation of the site. An auction is on ‘ as is where is basis’ – With reference to a public auction of the existing sites (as contrasted to the to the sites to be ‘formed’) the purchaser/lesser is not consumer, the owner is not a ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’  and the grievances do not relate to any matter in regard to 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 Forums under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner.

8.                          In view of the principle of law already laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and others Vs Amarjeet Singh and others (Supra), present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Consequently, we dismiss the same without going into the merits of the case. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court for redressal of his grievance and to seek condonation of delay, for the period, his complaint remained pending in this Forum, as permissible under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act,1963       

9.                          The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                     (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 18.07.2016                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER.