Order No: 3 Date:24/09/2024
Today is fixed for further admission hearing. Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant on call when the case is taken up for hearing.
However, when we go through the complaint petition, we find that the contention of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a property from the O.p. no.1 through an E-Auction and paid the total consideration of Rs.28,24,850/-. But the O.p.-Bank failed to give possession and hand over the property and returned the total consideration amount to the complainant without any interest after a lapse of one year for which the complainant filed this complaint praying the interest thereof together with compensation.
At this position, we have taken the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & anr Vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1994 of 2006, (2009) 4 SCC 660, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined that:
“14. ………….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 complaint 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.” [Emphasis supplied]
Similar opinion has been found in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. passed in Revision Petition No.1931 of 2017.
So, in our opinion, in this instant case there is no matter involved in this auction process which could be termed as “service”, and the auction purchaser is not a consumer who can take shelter under the C.P. Act, 2019.
Under this condition, the complaint case No.CC/178/2024 be and the same is dismissed being not admitted for devoid of merit and with no cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
