ORDER Per – Hon’ble Mr. Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member We have heard learned Adv. Shyam Maheshwari on behalf of the Complainants. We have also carefully perused the material placed on record. This is a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act). Complainants claiming themselves to be, ‘consumers’, resort to a remedy to have a refund of the amount of purchase money deposited by them with the Opposite Party Bank. It is alleged that the Opposite Party Bank auctioned a plot for recovery of debt of the borrower. The Complainants participated in the proceedings. He has have been accepted to be highest bidder. In accordance thereto, the Complainants deposited the purchase amount of over Rs.30 Lac with the Opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party has executed the necessary instrument. However, at the time of recovering actual possession, it was noticed that the Opposite Party Bank has committed serious irregularities. Thereby, the District Collector refused to invoke the discretion to allow delivery of actual possession in favour of the Complainants. After considering the contentions raised, in our view, Complainants want to exercise civil right for recovering the amount. It cannot be said that, any ‘service’ has been rendered by the Opposite Party in these facts or that, Opposite Party Bank has committed, ‘deficiency’ in service. In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the Complainants relied upon a ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, ‘Madan Kumar Singh (dead) through LR. Vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Others’, reported in 2010-(2)-Mh.L.J.-75. That case related to goods or commodities for, ‘self consumption’. Said ruling is, therefore, not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the following:- ORDER The complaint stands disposed of as dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Pronounced on 10th June, 2015 | 
