Delhi

StateCommission

FA/931/2013

CORPORATION BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHD. RAZIGEEN - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:10.12.2015

First Appeal- 931/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 26.06.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 841/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

Corporation Bank,

Ansal Laxmi Deep, Plot No.9,

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092

Through its Chief Manager.

                                                ….Appellant

Versus

Mohd. Raziqeen,

S/o Mohd. Ashqeen,

1933, Kucha Challan,

Gali Rajan, Daryaganj,

New Delhi.

….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member(Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 26.6.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 841/2011.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of appeal are as under:

Respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum and had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that on 29.7.06 he had participated in a public auction for sale of property conducted by appellant/OP and was declared successful.  A sum of Rs.1,56,000/- was deposited by him and appellant/OP advised him to deposit the balance amount of Rs.4,69,000/-.  It was alleged that for the purpose of making balance payment, respondent/complainant had approached ICICI Bank for loan and had to incur process charges there.  It was alleged that subsequent thereto, respondent/complainant came to know that litigation in respect of property in question was pending with DRT, Delhi whereby appellant/OP was restrained from the sale of said property.  It was alleged that on 7.11.08, appellant/OP cancelled the same and returned the deposited amount of Rs.1,56,000/- to the respondent/complainant.  Thereupon the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that there was no omission on his part and as such demanded interest and compensation for cancelling the auction where the property was sold to him.

3. The appellant/OP was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum vide order dated  26.6.13.  Thereupon Ld. District Forum, considering the ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit filed by the respondent/complainant, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.1,56,000/- for the period from 3.8.06 to 7.11.08 along with litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-.
4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was never served before the District Forum otherwise appellant/OP would have contested the complaint case.  It is contended that absence was not willful.  It is further contended that District Forum had no jurisdiction to grant relief in matters arising out of auction sale as there is no arrangement of hiring of services for consideration.  In support of the contention raised, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgement of National Commission in Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs M.K. Bhoot & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 10 (NC).  It is further contended that in any event, there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP as sale was cancelled pursuant to direction of DRT-III, Delhi.
6. The respondent/complainant did not put in appearance despite being served.
7. We have considered the submission made and perused the material on record.  It is the case of the respondent/complainant that he had participated in a public auction for sale of property conducted by appellant/OP wherein he was declared successful and a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- was paid by him to appellant/OP.  It is also his case that subsequently the sale was cancelled and Rs.1,56,000/- was refunded to him.  The respondent/complainant had filed a consumer complaint for the grant of compensation and interest on refunded amount.  The facts on record show that transaction had arisen out of auction sale and the respondent/complainant had paid consideration in a matter arising out of auction.  The National Commission in Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs M.K. Bhoot & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 10 (NC), after referring to its earlier judgements in respect of transactions arising out of auction sale, has categorically held that no consumer dispute can arise out of a relationship of a seller and a purchaser in an auction under the provisions of the Act.  The relevant para of the judgement is reproduced as under:

“In our considered view, no consumer dispute can arise out of a relationship of a seller and a purchaser in an auction under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  This Commission, in a number of decisions, has taken the view that no relief under the Act can be granted where transaction has arisen out of auction.  Consumer Foras cannot grant any relief in a matter arising out of auction sale as there is no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties.”

 

8. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed in a transaction arising out of auction.   As noted above, the District Forum has no power to grant relief in such matters.  The District Forum ought not have exercised its jurisdiction in the present case.  Further as noted above, the cancellation of sale was not on account of act of appellant/OP but pursuant to directions of DRT-III, Delhi.  We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently dismiss the consumer complaint No.841/2011.  There is no order as to costs.
9. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned

District Forum.  File be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member(Judicial)

sa