FIRST APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2004 | (Against the order dated 5.11.04 in Complaint Case No.78/95 of the State Commission, U.P.) | Mrs. Jamila Begum | ... Appellant | Versus | | U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. | ... Respondents | FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2004 | (Against the order dated 5.115.04 in Complaint Case No.84/93 of the State Commission, U.P.) | Smt. Nagina Devi | ... Appellant | Versus | | U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. | ... Respondents | FIRST APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2004 (Against the order dated 5.11.04 in Complaint Case No.85/93 of the State Commission, U.P.) | Smt. Bindu Singh | ... Appellant | Versus | | U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. | ... Respondents | FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2004 | (Against the order dated 5.11.04 in Complaint Case No.79/95 of the State Commission, U.P.) | Smt. Nahid Begum | ... Appellant | Versus | | U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. | ... Respondents |
This order shall dispose of the aforementioned four First Appeals as the facts and the law point involved is the same. Complainant/appellants purchased the plots in open auction. Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. – (2009)4 SCC 660 has held that auction purchasers would not be covered under the Consumer Protection Act as it involves transfer of immovable property and not hiring of any services. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-20, 21 read as under : “20. Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amenities are available, he would offer a higher amount. If there are no amenities, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided. 21. 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 compliant 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.” In view of the binding precedent, we have no option but to dismiss the appeals. Dismissed. Appellants, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek relief from any other Forum along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | |
