A successful bidder in a public auction is not considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, and the failure to provide mandatory prior notice further renders such complaints non-maintainable.

ORDER

BY HON'BLE SRI RAVI SHANXAR. JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellants/Opposite Parties consumer complaint No.37 /2O2O preferred this Appeal against the order dated 19.O3.2O2L passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, T\rmakuru after appreciating the evidence and documents produced by the complainant had allowed the complaint in part directing these Appellants to handover the possession of MIG House No.91 and execute the registered sale deed within 45 days. If fail to comply they shall pay penalty of Rs.i00/- per day till compliance, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation, Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses against which the Appellants before this Commission.

Heard further from the Learned Counsel for Appellants.

The Learned Counsel for Appellants submits that the property in dispute sold by these Appellants by auction. The auction purchaser does not fall within the purview of definition of 'Consumer'. The said property was sold as it is where it is. Any dispute arose out of by the sale by public auction cannot be filed before the District Commission. Even there is no any consumer dispute arose in the transaction made, but the District Commission fails to appreciate the basic facts that the complainants are not a consumer and by not considering the defence taken had allowed the complaint and also directed these Appellants to handover the possession of MIG House No.91 and also directed to pay penalty of Rs. 100/- per day till compliance, Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.l0,0O0/_ towards litigation expenses and g% interest was awarded. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law as they are not liable to pay any such amount and also the possession was given to the complainants. There is no any deficiency in service and hence prays to dismiss the complaint by setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

Perused the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission, Appeal memo and documents produced before the District Commission. It is an admitted fact that the notice was issued through paper publication by these Appellants offering the bidders to purchase sites and houses of a different grades such as EWS, LIG, MIG, HIG1, HIG2. The sale was through public auction whoever bides the higher is going to purchase the said category of houses. Accordingly, the complainants were the highest bidder to the MIG House No.9i and after the bidding the possession was given, but not satisfying with the possession and non completion of the entire work, the complainants alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.

The District Commission after trail had allowed the complaint and directed these Appellants to give possession of the said MIG House No.91 and also directed for payment of different compensation including penalty of Rs. 100/_ per day till compliance and Rs. 1,00 ,OOO /- as a compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.

The Learned Counsel for Appellants submit that the notice prior to institution of any suit is mandate as per the provisions. But the complainants have not issued any notice prior institution of either complaint or suit before any authorities. Same was submitted before the District Commission. But the District Commission ignored the said defence and took up the matter for adjudication. In fact the complaint has to be dismissed at a threshold itself. But, the District Commission made error in taking up the matter for adjudication and allowed the complaint. The District Commission has violated the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and allowed the complaint ignoring the Apex Court directions also. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

Considered the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for Appellants. When the transaction was public auction sa]e, the succe