State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anwar Hussain vs Indian Bank & Others on 17 January, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/813
Instituted on : 28.12.2012
Anwar Hussain, S/o Shri Haider Ali,
R/o : Vrindavan Complex, Opposite Jethawadi,
Moudhapara, Raipur,
Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1.Indian Bank, Through - General Manager/Mahaprabandhak, Address : 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
2. Indian Bank, Through : Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Gurunanak Chowk, Branch - Raipur, Tehsil & District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. Shri Chandrakishore Tiwari (Declared Ex‐parte), S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Tiwari, In Front of Hanuman Mandir, Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents. PRESENT: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: ‐ Shri Riyaz Ali, for appellant.
ORAL ORDER Dated : 17/01/2013 PER: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT // {PAGE } // This appeal is directed against, order dated 29.11.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), passed in Complaint Case No. 600/2011, whereby complaint of the appellant/complainant against the respondents/OPs was dismissed.
2. It appears that the dispute between the parties is regarding specific performance of contract of sale. As per contention of the appellant/complainant, in auction a plot of land i.e. immovable property was offered for sale and the complainant paid the auction price, but the sale deed was not executed by the respondents in spite of receiving consideration.
3. From the contents of the complaint, it appears that neither respondents were "service provider" nor were seller of any goods. It is a dispute regarding immovable properly, which has not been transferred in favour of the appellant/complainant. Thus, the dispute is solely for specific performance of contract of sale of immovable properly, which does not come in the purview of "consumer dispute"
and appellant/complainant does not come in purview of "consumer"
as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, // {PAGE } // therefore, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint, being not maintainable. The impugned order calls for no interference.
4. Thus, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the appellant/complainant for filing civil suit or any other proceedings before other Tribunal available to him, in law. The period, spent by the appellant/complainant in contesting consumer complaint before the District Forum and in this appeal before this Commission, may be claimed as set off from the period of limitation prescribed for such proceedings or civil suit. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2013 /01/2013