BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

PRESENT

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appeal No. 1474/2019

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP preferred this appeal against order dated 24.09.2019 in C.C.No.108/2019 passed by District Commission, Chamarajanagar which directed this appellant to pay Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- litigation costs and submits that complainant had purchased site bearing No. MIG 70 situated at Housing Board Colony, Ramasamudra, Chmarajanagar in public auction held on 20.03.2012.  The complainant being highest bidder for an amount of Rs.7,45,000/- succeeded in the auction.  Accordingly, site was handed over by executing sale deed.  After execution of sale deed complainant came to know measurement of site was 15 mts. towards East-West and 11.50 mts. towards North-South totally measuring 172.50 mts. The said measurement was mentioned in the auction notification and also reflected in the sale deed, possession certificate and khata.  Such being the case the complainant applied for license to construct house for which Municipality replied through their letter dated 23.03.2019 that there is encroachment of 18 mts. towards southern part of the site.  Hence, declined to sanction the license.  The complainant immediately requested the OP to rectify the mistake committed by them and also demanded for payment of compensation towards the encroachment of 18 mts.  After trial District Commission allowed the complaint and directed to pay amount mentioned above.  Further appellant submitted that complainant as a public auction purchaser is not a ‘Consumer’.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed.

2. On going through the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, the District Commission noted in the order that complainant is a purchaser of the site in public auction held on 20.03.2012.  When the complainant purchased site in public auction he will not fall under purview of ‘Consumer’.  The District Commission without considering whether the complainant is ‘Consumer’ or not has directed this appellant to pay amount of Rs.3,30,000/- which according to us lacks legality.  The complainant has an option to file suit against OP in other appropriate authority for the relief sought before the District Commission.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission requires to be set aside.  As such the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, complaint is dismissed.
3. The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.

                                        JUDICIAL MEMBER

CV*