Back
2009(2) CPR 451 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Rajasthan Financial Corporation —Petitioner
versus
M.K. Bhoot and Another —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 740 of 2006
Decided on 18.5.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shyam Moorjani, Advocate and Ms. Ananya Poddar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
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 parties.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) —Complainant respondent participated in auction held by petitioner Rajasthan Financial Corporation—Complainant bid of Rs. 34,50,000 being highest was accepted—Deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 at the time of giving bid by complainant—Forfeiture of deposited amount on complainant failing to deposit balance amount—Complaint—Dismissed by District Forum holding that complaint was not maintainable as dispute between parties could not be adjudicated by Foras under the Act, respondent not being a ‘consumer’ within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Act—Appeal—Allowed by State Commission without appreciating question of law involved—Revision petition—No consumer dispute can arisen out of a relationship of a seller and a purchaser in an auction under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986—No relief under the Act can be granted where transaction has arises 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 parties—State Commission acted in perverse manner in allowing appeal without even referring to nature of dispute between parties and meeting any of reasons given by District Forum while dismissing complaint—Impugned order under appeal held unsustainable—Revision petition allowed. (Paras 9, 13 and 14)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
Ashok Bhan, President—Rajasthan Financial Corporation-petitioner herein, which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present revision petition against the Order dated 8.12.2005 in Appeal No. 886 of 1997 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). The State Commission, by the impugned order, has set aside the order passed by the District Forum. District Forum had dismissed the complaint holding that the respondent/complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
The complainant/respondent participated in the auction held by the petitioner. The auction was in respect of movable and immovable properties. Complainant’s bid of Rs.34,50,000 being the highest, was accepted and, later on, approved by the State Government. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,75,000 at the time of giving the bid. As the complainant could not deposit the balance amount, the petitioner forfeited the deposited amount. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.
District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint was not maintainable as the dispute between the parties could not be adjudicated by the Foras under the Act as the respondent was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondent/complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission without appreciating the question of law involved, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The only reason given by the State Commission for setting aside the Order of the District Forum is as under:
“There is no dispute on the point that the amount of Rs.l,75,000 was deposited by the appellant and thus this amount belongs to him and in our considered opinion this amount must have been paid to him and for that the observations of the D.F. that complainant must approach Civil Court could not be sustained now.”
4. Since the respondent or his counsel is not present today despite service of notice, the respondent is proceeded ex-parte.
5. Petitioner is a Financial Corporation of the State of Rajasthan formed under the provisions of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act of 1951’ for short). Petitioner is engaged in providing financial assistance to various industrial units in the State. The financial assistance is granted against mortgage of land, building, plant and machinery of the borrower. If the borrower unit fails to pay the dues as per agreement, the Corporation is entitled to takeover the assets thereof in exercise of powers under Section 29 and 31 of the Act of 1951 and sell them by auction or otherwise for the purposes of recovery of its dues. The petitioner is otherwise not dealing in any business of sale of property but sale of properties are occasioned and occur on account of such eventualities as aforesaid which is merely incidental to its main functions.
6. M/s Geo International Private Limited, one of the borrowers of the petitioner, failed to repay its dues and, consequently, the petitioner took over the assets of the borrower and placed them for sale on “As is where is basis” by public auction. Clause 2 of the Terms of Auction stipulated that the sale was on “As is where is basis”. Clause 1, thereof, envisaged the participant to deposit 5% of the proposed bid amount as earnest money and Clause 4, stipulated that the successful bidder shall deposit 25% of the bid amount within 30 days of the acceptance of the bid failing which the earnest money deposited shall be forfeited.
7. The complainant participate
