DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 3^rd day of July 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.82/2010

Babu Ramanand

S/o. Krishnankutty Varrier

Rama Nilayam

Kuthanur Post

Palakkad – 678 721 - Complainant

(Adv. A.V.Ravi & Vijayalakshmi.K.P)

Vs

The Manager

M/s. Indian Bank

Keerthi Complex

Court Road

Palakkad – 678 001. - Opposite party

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President

In short, the case of the complainant is as follows.

Complaint is with respect to a purchase of land in auction. Complainant bid the property in auction on the basis of a notification issued by the opposite party Bank. Sale has been fixed for Rs.17 lakhs. Complainant remitted an amount of Rs.4 lakh 25 thousand and twenty five. The amount was deposited under the bonafide belief that the property is free from all encumbrances. Opposite party also made the complainant to believe so. Thereafter when the complainant was prepared to deposit the balance amount opposite party informed that three cases are pending with respect to the said property, two in Debt Recovery Tribunal and one in Palakkad Sub Court. According to the complainant, opposite party concealed these facts before the auction purchase.

Complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount with interest as he is no more interested to proceed with the sale. Opposite party has not returned the same. The act of opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to refund the amount deposited together with Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

- 2 -

Matter was posted for hearing on admission. Heard the complainant.

The issue to be decided is whether the complainant being an auction purchaser is a consumer and whether the complaint is maintainable before the forum.

Complainant placed before us two judgements rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court to substantiate the claim that complainant is a consumer. In Madankumar Singh (D) Thr. LR Vs, District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others, 2009 NCJ 769 (SC), the matter was in respect of auction purchase of a vehicle. There it was held that the purchaser would fall in the category of a consumer as he had bought the truck for consideration.

The case at hand is with respect to a purchase of immovable property and regarding the deficiency in service involved in the said transaction. Hence we find that the above stated decision will not apply here.

In U T Chandigarh Administration and another Vs Amarjeet Singh and others II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC), Honourable Supreme Court has specifically held that with reference to a public auction of existing sites, the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a trader or service provider and therefore any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the fora will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites.

Complainant has argued for the position that the said decision is with respect to lease and the present complaint is regarding the sale of the property. On going through the decision, Supreme Court has specifically stated that purchaser/lessee is not a consumer. Hence we understand that decision applies to both sale and lease.

In the light of above stated decision, without going into the merit of the case, we dismiss the complaint. Complainant is directed to approach appropriate Court for relief.

- 3 -

Pronounced in the open court on this the 3^rd day of July, 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Date of filing: 17/06/2010

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent