DATE OF FILING : 16.02.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.50/2010

Between

Complainant : Maniyamma W/o Sivaraman,

Kandalilthekkethil House,

Keerithodu P.O,

Keererithodu,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: N.K.Vinodkumar)

And

Opposite Parties : The Secretary,

Kanjikuzhy Grama Panchayath,

Kanjikuzhy P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant was the highest bidder in the public auction for the removing of the old building of the Kanjikuzhy Panchayath, Idukki, where the "Anganvadi" was functioning. The auction was finalized to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,050/- on 22.01.2010. Complainant paid the amount and the receipt for the same was also given. Two other people joined in the auction approached the complainant for getting the same. But the complainant denied. The opposite party published another notice dated 8.02.2010 for re-auction without specifying the date. It was revealed on 9.02.2010 to the complainant that the said building was re-auctioned and finalised to another person without knowledge of anybody, without giving notice to the complainant.
 

2. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, as per the Panchayath Raj Act, no complaint shall be entertained without statutory notice given to the opposite party. Eventhough the complainant was the highest bidder for the auction and the auction was finalized to the complainant, the auction was done with a condition that all directions of the Government is applicable for the public auction. Since the auction is finalised subject to the regulations of the Government, the Panchayath Committee has the right to cancel the auction on genuine ground. On 29/01/2010, 5 persons gave a complaint to the Panchayath Committee, so the Committee decided to cancel the auction and decided to conduct a re-auction. The complainant vide letter dated 2.2.2010 was asked to receive back the money. For the re-auction, notice was issued for conducting on 8.2.2010 at 11 A.M. In that auction 7 people were attended and the building was auctioned by Mr.Mathew Palathinkal, Keerithodu for Rs.9,500/-. Thus the Panchayath got Rs.8,300/- profit in that re-auction. The opposite party done the entire things pertaining to the auction upon almost good faith and for the interest of the public.

3. We think that as per the decision from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1607 the Hon'bl Judges Mr.R.V.RAVEENDRAN AND Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU.JJ. Civil Appeal Nos.1994 And 1995 of 2006* C.A Nos.1633 to 1662 of 2009 with 1674-1686 of 2009@ SLP(C)No.25250 of 2007 4518,4519,4520,4523,4525,6362 to 6369, 6372 to 6385, 15831 and 15859 of 2008 with 3271 to 3283 of 2008, D/-17-3-2009.

U.T.Chandigarh Administration & Anr.v.Amarjeet Singh & Ors.
 

(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.2(c), (d) (e) – Complaint – Jurisdiction to entertain - Public Auction of existing sites – Purchaser/lessee is not “consumer” - Owner is not “trader” or “service Provider” - Any grievance by purchaser/lessee - Would not give rise to complaint or consumer dispute – Fora under Act cannot entertain or decide any complaint by purchaser/lessee against owner of sites. So the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
 

Hence the petition is not maintainable as per the decision and the petition dismissed.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of May, 2010

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil