UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, 

          The present Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal in Consumer Complaint No. 27/2015 dismissing the complaint on contest without any cost.

          Briefly stated, the facts relevant to the instant Appeal were that the Appellant , in response to the Advertisement published in daily newspaper in respect of sale of a property on auction, offered the rate to the tune of Rs. 18,30,000/- for purchasing the said property which was acceptable to the Respondent Bank , the publisher of the advertisement. The Appellant first made a part payment of Rs. 1,83,000/- and subsequently deposited the balance amount of Rs. 16,47,000/-.

          As revealed , Smt. Manju Saha , the original owner of the property in question , kept the property on mortgage with the Respondent /Bank for obtaining Bank loan in connection with running her business . Since the said borrower failed to make repayment of the loan , the property was put on auction through due advertisement as per provision laid down u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.

          The Respondent Bank , in spite of the payment of the bid amount  being made to them by the Appellant , failed to deliver the physical possession of the subject property. The Deed of Conveyance also could not be registered in the name of the Appellant by the Respondents in spite of persuasion and formal communications made to the Respondents .

          The Appellant, being aggrieved with the prolonged inaction on the part of the Respondent , lost her interest in acquiring the subject property and through a legal notice informed the Respondent Bank either to deliver physical possession of the property issuing the Registered Deed of Conveyance or to refund the entire paid amount of Rs. 18,30,000/- with interest .

          No positive result from the Respondent Bank being found forthcoming in spite of all actions as above  being duly taken, the aggrieved Appellant filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which led to originate the impugned judgment and order .

          The Appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondent . The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, in his very small submission , focused  on how the Appellant was deprived by the Respondents by not being delivered the physical possession of the auctioned property in spite of the fact that the Bid money as per auction was duly deposited by him with the Respondent organization and concluded his prayer for allowing the Appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record. The property appeared to have purchased by the Appellant participating in an open auction . It is now a settled principle of law that a person purchasing an immovable property participating in open auction is not a consumer as defined in the C.P. Act, 1986.

          In the above context , we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 483 of 2014 [ Chief Manager / Authorized Officer , SBI , Mysore –vs- G. Mahimariah ] wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration and Anr. –vs- Amarjeet Singh and Ors, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 660 , decided against maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the purchaser of an immovable property put on auction by a Bank was not a consumer ,

          Bowing before the decision referred to above of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also of the Hon’ble National Commission , we are constrained to hold that the instant complaint lacked the merit for being considered as maintainable before the Consumer Fora.

          We , therefore, are inclined to abstain from interfering with the conclusion of the Ld. District Forum . Hence,

                                                Ordered

That the Appeal be and the same is dismissed . The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.