A successful auction purchaser is not considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, with the transaction based on specific auction terms stifling claims of deficiency in service by the bank.

ORDER

1. The appellant bank has challenged the order of the State Commission in CC No. 24/2018 dated 16.06.2022 whereby the complaint of the complainant (respondent herein) was allowed and the opposite party bank (appellant herein) was directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.14.25 lakhs for the period during which the DDs deposited by the complainant with the appellant bank towards auction purchase remained wrongfully with the appellant bank.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Appellant bank published an auction notice in Uttar Banga Sambad inviting in sealed cover from the intending buyers for purchase of a specific mortgaged property of M/s Kalpana Enterprises, situated at Rashbehari Sarani for open land measuring 4.50 kathas, vide deed no. I- 2240 dated 24.06.1955, Khatiyan No. 3138, J.L. Number 110(88), Dag No. 10652, Paragana, Baikunthapur, Mouza-Siliguri, Touzi No. 3 (ja), Near Khelaghar More. In pursuance to the aforesaid sale notice dated 04.10.2008, respondent offered a bidding price of Rs.14,25,000/- and deposited Rs.1,35,000/- as earned money with the appellant bank. Respondent was declared as highest and successful bidder for the said auction and he was called upon to make the payment of 15% of his offer by 15.11.2008 by way of PO/DD and rest of the amount by 19.11.2008. Respondent deposited demand draft of Rs.2,14,000/- on 20.11.2008 and of balance amount i.e. Rs.10,76,000/- on 06.12.2008 claiming that he has deposited 15% of the bid amount in terms of letter dated 11.11.2008 issued by the appellant bank and requested the appellant bank to confirm the sale of the said property in his favour. However, 15% amount of the bid price was deposited by the respondent on 20.11.2008 through demand draft dated 19.11.2008. Appellant bank submitted that the respondent did not comply with the terms and conditions of the letter dated 11.11.2008 wherein it was clearly mentioned that 15% of the bid amount was to be deposited latest by 15.11.2008 and rest of the amount was also to be deposited by 19.11.2008. Respondent was called upon either to take back his demand drafts or to accept sale certificate on “as is where is” basis, but he did not turn up. It appears the respondent wanted vacant possession of the property which was in fact occupied by the original owner. Appellant bank duly communicated to the respondent that as the sale failed/ceased due to non-payment of mandatory portions of the amounts as per auction notice terms within the stipulated period and as the sale was on “as is where is” basis, question of issuing sale certificate in favour of the respondent does not arise. Respondent then chose to file a complaint case before the State Commission, Siliguri, West Bengal bearing No. 24 of 2018, which vide its order dated 16.06.2022 allowed the complaint of the complainant (respondent herewith) and passed the following order:

……. The Bank has returned back the demand drafts(three) to the complainant on 13.02.2017.

The bank says that after cancelling the deal the bank Vide letter dated 23.09.2011 requested the complainant to collect the said three D.D. from the Bank authority to Rs. 14.25 lacs but the complainant never come to collect the same.

The bank on 29.12.2010 urged the demand draft issuing bank to revalidate the said three demand draft as the same could not be presented in time.

The issuing Bank presently known as H.D.F.C Bank Vide letter dated 23.11.2015 confirmed the cancellation of the said three D.D but no date of cancellation mentioned.

For