27/03/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT           

            This order relates to hearing on the point of admission. 

            The case of the Complainants, in short, is that the property originally belonged to Bishnu Devi Show, Brahamananda Jaiswal, Bimala Debi Show, Nirmala Debi Show and others who took loan from the OP Bank by mortgaging the property as collateral security.  They failed to repay the loan amount and the Bank exercised its right under SARFAESI Act.  The property was sold in auction and the Complainants purchased the property in the said auction and paid the entire amount of Rs.25,01,551/- to the Bank.  On completion of the auction proceeding the Bank issued a sale certificate in favour of the Complainants in respect of said property.  Subsequently, Ramji Show, since deceased, filed an application before the DRT alleging that the property was sold at much lower price.  On contested hearing DRT rejected the said application on 05/10/11, but directed the Complainants to deposit a further sum of Rs.4,92,449/-.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the DRT in SA 218 of 2008 the legal heirs of Ramji Show preferred an Appeal before the DRAT being no.144 of 2011.  The Complainants have also been impleaded in the Appeal.  Being dissatisfied with the order passed by DRAT in Appeal no.144 of 2011, Bishnu Devi Show and others have preferred a Civil Revision Application before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta being no.C.O. 3091 of 2012.  After contested hearing it was dismissed on 20/01/14.  Being aggrieved by the said order Bishnu Devi Show and others preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it was dismissed.  There is no embargo on the part of the OP Bank to deliver possession of the property and registration of the same in favour of the Complainants.  But the OP Bank deliberately and willfully is neglecting and refusing to do the same. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, the complaint should be admitted. 

            We have heard the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Complainants and perused the papers on record.  In the decision reported in IV (2012) CPJ 404 (NC) [Suresh Kumar vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in case of purchase of a plot in open auction the Petitioner cannot be said to be a consumer.  In another decision reported in I (2015) CPJ 41 (NC) [Subhas Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that when a property was purchased in public auction, the Complainant was not a consumer.  Relying on the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Complainants being the auction purchasers, cannot be said to be consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986.

            The petition of complaint is dismissed being not admitted.