West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/30/2016

Sri Asit Panja - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Field General Manager, Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2016

ORDER

                                                          

                                                         

 

 

                                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 

Complaint Case No.30/2016

 

Sri Asit Panja……………Complainant

Vs.

The Field G.M., Allahabad Bank,  

Salt Lake, Kol-106 & another…….O.Ps.

                                        Order No.5.                                                       Date : 12/05/2016                                                                              

  

                  The case record is put up before us for passing order.

                  This hearing arises out of an application dated 18/04/2016, filed by the opposite parties-Bank, praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

                  Complainant has filed this case praying for directing the opposite parties to put the complainant in actual possession of E-auctioned purchased property, as described in the schedule of the petition of complaint and for some other reliefs like compensation and interest. 

                    Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he took part in the E-auction held at the Zonal Office of the O.P.-Bank at Medinipur on 25/08/2015 and he offered bid price of Rs.7,90,000/- in respect of the schedule property and the said bid, being the highest price, the authorized officer of the bid accepted the said bid and confirmed the sale of the said property in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant  deposited the entire bid-price to the opposite parties.  Accordingly the sale of the property in question under the provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was confirmed by the authorized officer of the opposite parties-Bank.  The Manager of the opposite parties-Bank acknowledged receipt of Rs.7,90,000/- and issued sale certificate in favour of the complainant on 15/09/2015.  Although the authorized officer of the opposite parties-Bank went to give delivery of possession of the said property on 17/09/2015 without assistance of the District Magistrate and police but he failed to do so.  Thereafter the complainant on several occasions requested the opposite parties to give delivery of possession of the property in question but the opposite parties began to kill time and avoided to do the same.  The complainant therefore sent a letter on 13/10/2015 by speed post to the opposite party-Bank thereby requesting them to take assistance of the District Magistrate and police under the provision of  SARFAESI Act and to

Contd………………..P/2

                                                           

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

deliver actual possession of the said E-auctioned purchased property to the complainant but they did not take any step.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite parties to put the complainant in actual possession of the E-auctioned  property and for other reliefs.

                   By filing the present petition, the opposite parties-Banks have specifically stated that E-auctioned property purchaser cannot be a consumer according to the definition of “consumer” as provided in section 2(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Further according to the opposite parties, they handed over delivery of possession of the schedule property to the complainant according to sale certificate vide reference no. Sale/901 dated 15/09/2015 which was free from all encumbrances and that was received by the complainant with full and final satisfaction on 15/09/2015.  It is, therefore, prayed by the opposite parties that the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                  At the time of hearing of that petition, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite parties submitted a ruling of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in First Appeal no.483 of 2014 on 30/10/2015.  We have gone through the aforesaid ruling of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and found that relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “The Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration and Another vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others” reported in (2009) 4 SCC 660 it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that in public auction of existing land sites, purchaser/lessee is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  So, in view of the said decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court,  the present complainant, being the auction purchaser, is not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, the present consumer’s complaint is not maintainable on that ground alone.                                                                                                                     

                            The petition dated 18/04/2016, filed by the opposite parties, is therefore allowed.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                                         ORDERED,

                              that the complaint case no.30/2016 is dismissed on contest being not maintainable but in the circumstances without cost.            

                            Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated & corrected by me

                  Sd/-                            Sd/-                         Sd/-                             Sd/-

             President                     Member                   Member                     President

                                                                                                                District Forum   

                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur