Mr Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The Canara Bank

A. P. Sahi, President Member

This complaint has been filed contending that the complainant on 26.10.2018 participated in an auction conducted with regard to the sale of a cold storage by the Canara Bank. It is admitted to the complainant that since he was the highest bidder, the bid was knocked down in his favour, who deposited the 10% of the bid amount and thereafter paid the balance amount as disclosed in paragraph 4 of the complaint.

The contention is that the entire payment of the sale consideration towards the auction had been made, yet the possession of the property was handed over on 26.11.2019 and the deed of conveyance was executed on 12.12.2019. Learned counsel has also invited the attention of the Bench to the letter of possession dated 26.11.2019, which is on record.

The complaint is that since the possession has not been delivered within time after auction, therefore, the Bank was deficient in its services, which resulted in consequential losses as the complainant was prevented from harnessing the services of the cold storage for his profit. It is this act of alleged negligence or omission to timely handover possession of the cold storage that has been made the basis for the claim made in the complaint. It is also pointed out that the said delay was about one year and having not received any response from the other authorities who were approached, the present complaint has been filed seeking relief relying on the judgment of this Commission dated 11.11.2019 in the case of Anila Jain Vs.  Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Complaint No. 2208/2017, reported in  2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 334.

It is also urged that the complaints were filed before the Banking Lokpal and with the Reserve Bank of India but no action was taken.

It is also stated in paragraph 24 that the complainant filed Civil Suit No. 658/2021 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Aligarh (UP) but the same was withdrawn on 10.01.2023. It has also been stated that the complaint was not filed within the statutory period of two years as the complainant was pursuing the remedies before the appropriate forums and hence the complaint be entertained and the reliefs prayed be granted.

The matter was taken up on 10.01.2024, when the learned counsel was called upon to address the bench as to how would this complaint be maintainable in respect of purchase of an immovable property through an auction.

Learned counsel today has advanced her submissions contending that it was the possession and running of the cold storage that was disrupted on account of non-handing over of timely possession. Consequently, the complainant suffered losses by not being able to run the cold storage for almost one year.

A perusal of the possession handing over certificate dated 26.11.2019 nowhere indicates that the said possession was taken under protest or was refused to be taken on account of the delay. The transaction is a bid of immovable property through an auction which is not service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is a transfer of title as held by the Apex Court in the case of “Estate officer, Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Charanjit Kaur, (2022) 13 SCC 475, Paragraphs 15 to 18 and 23”. Reference be also had to other two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of “UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 660, Paragraphs 19 to 21”  and “Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Raghu Nath Gupta & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 197, Paragraphs 12 to 16. The  conveyance through an auction therefore does not in any way give rise to a grievance to maintain a consumer complaint as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus, the complainant is neither a consumer nor the complaint is a consumer complaint nor any services have been established to be deficient so as to qualify as a consumer complaint. There are two orders of this Commission also to the same effect indicating that a simpliciter transfer of immovable property cannot be made the basis of a consumer complaint for deficiency in service. They are Krishan Baldev Gupta Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., decided on 20.05.1993 and reported in II (1993) CPJ 191 (NC) and Shiela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nainital Lake Development Authority & Ors., decided on 21.06.1996 in Original Petition No. 230 and 249 of 1993.

Even otherwise keeping in view the definition of the word services, this transferring possession through auction, is not a service as understood under the definition clause of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the complaint cannot be entertained as a consumer complaint. The complainant had already filed a civil suit, which he had voluntarily chosen to withdraw.

In the light of the above, this complaint cannot proceed and is accordingly consigned to record.