Auction purchaser could not be held to be a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act

Urban Improvement Trust Vs Magha Ram (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, while relying upon the Judgment of Supreme Court it was held that auction purchaser could not be held to be a ‘consumer’ and the lower for a do not have Jurisdiction to entertain issues pertaining to auction.

Facts: In present facts of the case, the revision petition have been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assails the order dated 02.02.2017 in First Appeal no. 238 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Delhi.

The Petitioner published an advertisement notifying sale by auction of residential plot in Bikaner on 27.04.1970. Respondent’s father made the highest bid of Rs. 11,960/- which was accepted by the petitioner. Respondent deposited 25% of the bid amount of Rs.2990/- as part payment of the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 11,960/-. On 09.12.1970 petitioner informed the respondent that a ‘stay’ order had been issued by the court qua the plot auctioned in his favour and that once this order was vacated, he would be informed by way of demand notice to deposit the balance consideration amount. On 09.03.1971 a demand notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondent to pay the balance amount along with the lease amount totalling to Rs.9004.30/- within one month from the date of receipt and that failure to do so would amount to automatic cancellation of the auction including forfeiting the amount paid. As the respondent failed to deposit the balance amount, on 17.07.1971 petitioner cancelled the allotment and the respondent’s father was informed of the cancellation when he visited the office of the petitioner. A letter dated 23.08.1971 was sent by respondent’s father for return of the amount deposited which was Rs.2990/-. On 29.10.1982 respondent’s father Ratan Lal expired. The plot in question had been sold through auction by Petitioner on 26.05.1998. The respondent therefore, does not have any title qua the property in question.

In view of copy of decision dated 03.07.2003 a Compromise Committee was setup by petitioner wherein it was held that complaint of the respondent was time barred since more than 33 years had passed from the date of auction. The matter was transferred to the State Government on 03.07.2003. On 15.10.2005 the decision of the Compromise Committee was reiterated by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, respondent filed Consumer Complaint in District Forum on 14.09.2005 alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum upheld the complaint and directed the petitioner to allot an alternate plot of the same size as was previously allotted within 3 months and pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.