Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. S. Sharma, President and Heena Thakkar, Member
VIJAY LAL MOURYA - Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Complaint Case No. 14 of 27.
Decided on : 22-01-2015
Awadhesh Rai, Advocate, for the Appellant; N. K. Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Respondent
An auction purchaser may not be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and complaints must be filed within the specified limitation period.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer - Section 17, SARFAESI Act - [17, 35] - The court dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant, an auction purchaser, was not considered a consumer of the bank under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also found the complaint to be time-barred, as it was filed after the limitation period of 2 years.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint seeking compensation under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the bank for not delivering possession of a house purchased through open auction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, as an auction purchaser, was not considered a consumer of the bank under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Additionally, the complaint was deemed time-barred and not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the bank. 2. Whether the complaint is time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, as an auction purchaser, did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Additionally, the court applied the limitation period of 2 years and found the complaint to be time-barred.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant on the grounds that the complainant was not a consumer of the bank and the complaint was time-barred.
ORDER
R. S. Sharma, President -The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (but the complainant has wrongly mentioned under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) against the opposite parties seeking compensation of Rs. 36,34,450/-.
2. The O. P. No. 1 (Bank) filed preliminary objection and pleaded that the complainant is not consumer of the O. P. No. 1 but the complainant has purchased the immovable property from O. P. No. 1 under provisions of SARFAESI Act in a public auction and thus the complainant is a purchaser and O. P. No. 1 is seller and under the provisions of the Consumer Provisions Act, 1986 neither the complainant is consumer of the O. P. No. 1 nor he comes under the definition of the consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission and the same is liable to be dismissed. The dispute between the complainant and O. P No. 1 (Bank) is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer of the O. P. No. 1 (Bank), but the actual fact is that the authorised officer of the O. P No. 1 (Bank) by using powers has invited auction for sale of the mortgaged property and as per terms of the auction the property was sold to the complainant. As per provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by the act of the authorised officer has right to file appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal. The complainant filed the complaint before this Commission belated i. e. on 15.09.2014 and he has not shown any reason for filing the complaint belatedly and the complaint is barred by limitation I. E. 3 years and is prima facie liable to be dismissed.
3. Firstly, we shall examine whether the complainant is consumer and complaint is maintainable
4. Shri N. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the O. P. No. 1 (Bank) has argued that the complaint is not a consumer and complaint is auction purchaser. Under provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the tender was invited and property in question was sold by the O. P. No. 1 (Bank) in open auction and the complainant purchased the said property and under provisions of Section 17 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He further argued that complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Shri Awadhesh Rai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the house in question from the O. P. No. 1 (Bank) through open auction but the possession of the house was not delivered to him. The complainant asked for the O. P. No. 1 (Bank) several times for delivering possession of the house in question. The complainant purchased the house from the O. P. No. 1 and he paid the entire amount to the O. P. No. 1 (Bank), therefore, the complainant is "consumer". The possession of the house in question was not delivered to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get possession of the house in question from the O. P. No. 1. The complainant is consumer of the O. P. No. 1. Under provisions of Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth "SARFAESI Act" the Tahsildar, Durg issued a letter dated 10.07.2012 to O. P. No. 2 to handover possession of house in question to O. P. No. 1 (Bank), therefore, the complaint is within limitation. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4662 of 2012 - Jaswinder Singh v. Corporation Bank and Revision Petition No. 4663 of 2012 - Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. Corporation Bank, decided by a common order dated 01st August, 2013.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the part
