PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.03.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 440/2015, “Bhanwarlal versus Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr.”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 17.03.2015, passed by the District Forum Chittorgarh in consumer complaint No. 415/2012, filed by the present petitioner, partly allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2.       The facts of the case are that the opposite party (OP) Rajasthan Housing Board Udaipur published an advertisement for their Senti Extension Scheme, Chittorgarh in the newspapers putting certain plots into auction.  The petitioner, who is a journalist by profession, deposited a sum of ₹50,000/- with the opposite party for plot 2-B-51-D, size 8 X 18 Mtr. for which the minimum selling price was fixed at ₹10,000/- per sq. mtr.  A total of 8 persons gave their bids for the said plots, out of whom the bid given by the complainant at a price of ₹11,513/- per sq. mtr. was the highest.  As per the requirements of the Housing Board, the complainant deposited ₹40,000/- on 15.06.2012 and ₹1,60,000/- on 16.06.2012 in the ICICI Bank.  Being the highest bidder, the complainant was expecting a letter from the OP Housing Board, asking him to deposit the rest of the money, and to obtain possession of the said plot but to his surprise, he received a letter dated 31.08.2012 from the Housing Board, saying that the bid given by him had not been accepted by the Headquarters of the OP Board.  The amount of ₹2,50,000/- deposited by him was also returned without interest vide cheque No. 030557 dated 31.08.2012.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Housing Board in not giving allotment of the plot, despite being the highest bidder and payment of the necessary amount, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Housing Board to hand over the possession of the plot after accepting the balance amount as per the price offered during bid, interest @24% p.a. on the amount deposited and a further compensation of ₹50,000/- against mental harassment and ₹10,000/- for cost of litigation.

3.       In reply, the OP Housing Board pleaded that as per clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction, the OP Housing Board had absolute powers to accept or reject any of the proposal given by the bidders.  The complaint was, therefore, not maintainable because the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board did not accept the auction and pass orders for re-auction of the said property.  Moreover, the amount refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 31.08.2012 had been accepted by the complainant without any interest.  The complaint should, therefore, be ordered to be dismissed.

4.       The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, partly allowed the complaint, vide their order dated 17.03.2015 and directed the OP Housing Board to pay interest @9% for the period from 16.06.2012 to 31.08.2012, during which the amount of ₹2.5 lakh remained deposited with them.  In addition, they directed the OPs to pay ₹3,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and ₹2,000/- as cost of litigation.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.       At the time of admission hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the OP Housing Board should have made allotment of plot in their favour, since the petitioner/complainant was the highest bidder during auction and he had also deposited a sum of ₹2.5 lakh with the Board, as per their demand.  The learned counsel argued that the amount had been refunded to the complainant without interest, and hence, adequate interest should be awarded to the petitioner.

6.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

7.       A perusal of the facts and circumstances on record indicates that although the petitioner/complainant was the highest bidder during the auction of the plot in question, made by the OP Housing Board in response to their advertisement in the newspapers, the said bid was not finally accepted by the higher authorities of the Board and hence, the allotment letter etc. was not issued in favour of the petitioner/complainant.  It has been categorically stated by the Housing Board that as per condition-7 of the terms and conditions of the said auction, the OP Housing Board had absolute right to accept/reject the offers made during the auction.  In the present case, the Chairman of the Housing Board did not accept the bid, although the amount offered by the petitioner/complainant was higher than the minimum selling price indicated in the auction notice.  It was, therefore, decided to put the plot to re-auction and the money deposited by the petitioner/complainant was refunded to him and he accepted the same without any protest.  It is evident from these facts that the allegation of deficiency in service towards the OP Housing Board does not stand proved, as the petitioner/complainant being the auction bidder, has not availed any service from the OP Housing Board.  Strictly speaking, the petitioner/complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in this case, because a formal allotment was not made in his favour.  Moreover, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “UT Chandigarh Administration vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.” [(2009) 4 SCC 660], that an auction purchaser does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Act.

8.         Since the Housing Board has used the money deposited by the petitioner/complainant to the tune of ₹2.5 lakh, the District Forum has already allowed him interest @9% p.a. for the period of the deposit.  The order has been duly confirmed in appeal by the State Commission.  We do not find any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order.  Since the orders passed by the consumer fora below have provided adequate compensation to the petitioner/complainant, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limini.  There shall be no order as to costs.