State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager,Idukki District Co ... vs P.N.Mualidharan on 7 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/632/2018
THE MANAGER,IDUKKI DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - NEDUKANDAM BRANCH IDUKKI ,KERALA.
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER IDUKKI DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - IDUKKI COLONY IDUKKI ,KERALA.
THE IDUKKI DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - IDUKKI COLONY IDUKKI ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
P.N.MUALIDHARAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - BLOCK NO 265 PUTHICKAL HOUSE NEDUKANDAM PO IDUKKI
,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 07/07/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.632/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07.07.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.329/2016 on the files of DCDRC, Idukki) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT
KUMAR
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
1. The Manager, Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Br.
Nedumkandam, Nedumkandam P.O., Idukki - 685 553
2. The Authorised Officer, Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd., H.O., Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki - 685 024
3. The Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by the Deputy General Manager, Head Office, Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki - 685 024 (by Adv. S. Suresh Babu) Vs. RESPONDENT:
P.N. Muraleedharan, Block No.265, Puthickal House, Nedumkandam P.O., Idukki - 685 553 (by Adv. R. Ram Mohan) JUDGMENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite party in C.C.No.329/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki (the District Commission for short) is the appellant.
2. The complainant had filed the complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The complainant had taken part in the auction conducted by the opposite parties as per the provisions of the SURFAESI Act.
On 18.02.2015, the auction was fixed in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) in respect of 14 cents of landed property comprised in Survey No.04/1 of Parathode Village. The 2nd opposite party was the authorised officer who conducted the auction. The complainant had paid Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the date of auction and the balance at the appropriate stage. Though the complainant had paid the entire consideration, the opposite parties did not execute the sale deed. They did not initiate any steps for the execution of the sale deed. The above act amounts to deficiency in service.
3. The complainant had entered into an agreement for sale with Mr. M.T. Thomas alias Kochu from Chemmannur by fixing a total consideration as Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only). The complainant has also received Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) as advance. But the complainant was not able to perform the stipulation in above agreement and he was compelled to return the advance money along with Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only). This amount is claimed as compensation for deficiency in service and another Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards inconvenience, difficulties and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
4. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed a written version with the following contentions:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They would admit that the secured assets pertaining to a defaulter, Smt. Shanty John, the 14 cents of the landed property was put in public auction on 18.02.2015 and the complainant had purchased the above property in the auction for an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only). The 2nd opposite party being the authorised officer was always ready to sign the sale certificate in favour of the complainant. But the complainant had failed to approach the authorised officer for getting the sale certificate. On 09.07.2015, letter was handed over to the complainant requesting him to approach the authorised officer for initiating necessary steps for registration. But there was no response from the side of the complainant. On receipt of the legal notice, a reply was sent to the complainant expressing the willingness of the bank for registration of the property. The 2nd opposite party had prepared the draft of the sale certificate for the purpose of registration and delivered the same to the complainant with necessary instruction. Even though the bank had initiated all necessary steps for obtaining of the sale certificate, the complainant never responded. In the above circumstances, the opposite parties would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the side of the complainant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P4 were also marked. DW1 was examined on the side of the opposite party. Exhibits R1, R2 series and R3 series were also marked. On evaluating the evidence let in by both parties, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the 1st opposite party to execute the sale certificate in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The District Commission has also directed the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as damages, Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. A default clause was also incorporated to pay interest @12% per annum in the event of non-compliance of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal has been filed.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the records received from the District Commission.
7. The complainant had taken part in an auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party with respect to the 14 cents of the landed property as the complainant had quoted the highest amount in the auction. Accordingly, the auction was confirmed in the name of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties never initiated any steps for causing execution of the registration of sale deed in his favour. So on 28.10.2016 the complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Exhibit P1. In answer to Exhibit P1, the 2nd opposite party had issued Exhibit P2 wherein it is specifically stated that on 09.07.2015, the 2nd opposite had issued a letter to the complainant for getting the sale documents registered in favour of the complainant. Exhibit P3 is the counter foil of the receipt dated 03.07.2015 evidencing the remittance of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) being the balance amount in the public auction. Exhibit P4 is the alleged agreement executed by the complainant with Sri. M.T. Thomas for the sale of the property.
8. According to the complainant on account of the dereliction on the part of the opposite party in not initiating steps for registering the title document in his favour, the complainant was unable to perform the agreement entered into between the third party for the sale of the property. The opposite party had set up a case that the complainant had failed to initiate necessary steps for causing registration of the sale document in his favour. Exhibit R1 is the letter dated 09.07.2015 requesting the complainant to appear before the 2nd opposite party for obtaining the sale document in favour of the complainant. Exhibit R1(a) is the auction notice published by the opposite parties. In Exhibit R1(a) there is a specific recital that the auction sale of the property is "As is where is and Whatever there is condition". It is also stipulated that it is the duty of the successful bidder in the auction to do all the necessary requirements for the registration of the title deed. The opposite parties had also caused production of the auction notice issued in the daily.
9. The 2nd opposite party had sent Exhibit R2 reply notice to the lawyer notice issued by the complainant wherein it is clearly mentioned that the 2nd opposite party had issued the letter requesting the complainant to appear before him for getting the sale documents pertaining to the property. Exhibit R3 is the copy of the registered notice issued by the 2nd opposite party along with the copy of the sale certificate requesting the complainant to prepare the sale certificate in a stamp paper that they had taken all necessary steps for registration of the sale documents in favour of the complainant. But the complainant was not actually ready and willing to get the documents executed and registered in his favour. So there is no dereliction on their part.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant would place reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Another vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors. reported in II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had declared that Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he is a purchaser in public auction, not a consumer, the owner is not a `trader' or `service provider'. So any grievance by the purchaser will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute. Fora under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints by the auction purchaser against the owner holding auction site.
11. On a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is seen that on 09.07.2015, the 2nd opposite party had issued a letter to the complainant to do all the necessary requisites for getting the sale document executed and registered in favour of the complainant. But the complainant did not respond to the communication issued by the opposite parties. The copy of the above letter is Exhibit R1. In the reply notice specific averments were made by the 2nd opposite party that the 2nd opposite party had sent letter on 09.07.2015. But the complainant did not appear before the 2nd opposite party for obtaining the sale document executed and registered in his favour. The complainant had no explanation as to why he did not respond to Exhibit R1 letter issued by the 2nd opposite party. On evaluating the entire evidence on record, it is seen that there are some other impediments in causing execution of the sale deed as the property was shown as a purambokku in the records which was subsequently resolved by the complainant.
12. On a careful analysis of the entire evidence on record, it is seen that the delay had occurred on account of the confusion in showing the property as purambokku land. If that be the position, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So no compensation could be ordered against the complainant. Since deficiency in service is not established, the complaint ought to have been dismissed. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, it is found that the order passed by the District Commission is unsustainable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order passed by the District Commission is set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
The statutory deposit shall be given to the appellants on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT
KUMAR
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL
MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
SL
..................
SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D
JUDICIAL MEMBER