P SRINIVASA VARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above named complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) According to the complainant, the tea estate and tea factory of M/s. Kathikal Tea Plantation was put to auction by the opposite party-Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and the complainant purchased the same for a consideration of Rs. 75,60,000 and a sale certificate was issued in his faovur and got registered. However, the actual physical possession of the said estate/immovable property was not delivered to the complainant uptil 26.10.2009 and due to this delay, the complainant has suffered pecuniary loss and injury for which the opposite party-Bank is liable to pay damages to the complainant on account of its loss of net income from the tea estate and tea factory for the delayed period. As per the complainant's own showing, the owners of the tea estate and tea factory had approached the High Court of Madras and Court of Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

(3.) We have heard Mr. R.V. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate representing the complainant at length on the question of maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission and have perused the material placed on record in support of the complaint. Taking the averments and allegations made in the complaint on their face value at this stage, the question is whether the complainant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission for the redressal of his grievance under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Our answer is in the negative and it is for the reasons that neither the complainant can be said to be a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') as it stands after amendment nor the opposite party State Bank of India can be said a service provider within the meaning of the Act. We say so because as per the complainant's own showing, he had purchased the tea estate/tea factory, which was a business/commercial venture and for commercial use only as he claims that due to the delay in getting the actual physical possession of the tea factory, he had suffered a net loss of income to the extent of Rs. 75,60,000. Therefore; even if it is assumed that the opposite party-Bank has provided some kind of service to the complainant by sale of the said tea estate to the complainant under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the said service will be deemed to have been provided for commercial purpose and the service availed by a consumer for commercial purpose has been taken out from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Amending Act 62 of 2002 effective from 15.3.2003. By sale of the tea estate/tea factory to the complainant under the provisions of 2002 Act, the opposite party-Bank cannot be said to have rendered any service to the complainant within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Act because it was a pure, simple transaction of outright sale of immovable and movable properties of the complainant in terms of the provisions of Act of 2002. In this view, we are supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrator, UT, Chandigarh v. Amarjeet Singh, 2009 2 CPJ 1. The complainant in the present case had purchased the tea estate in an auction held by the opposite party and willbe deemed to have done so on 'as is where is basis' i.e. after due diligence and knowing fully the fact that the physical possession of the tea estate was not being handed over to the complainant although the sale certificate has been registered in his favour.