(1.) The respondent Mr. Varghese P. George was the Complainant before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Consumer Complaint No.47 of 1999. The matter in his complaint pertains to auction of a site by appellant/Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) on 22.9.1997. At Rs.68.48 lakhs, his bid was the highest and therefore accepted by the BDA. He followed it up with payment 25 % of the bid amount, Rs.17.12 lakhs, as required for confirmation. The case of the Complainant was that there was no further communication from the BDA. However, the stand of the BDA before the State Commission was that the decision to confirm the bid in favour of the Complainant was communicated to the Complainant and he was also called upon to pay the remaining amount.
(2.) Subsequently, a legal notice was issued by the Complainant on 29.1.1999, which was replied by the BDA on 31.3.1999. The State Commission took into account the continued willingness of the BDA to receive the balance of payment and to handover possession of the site and came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the BDA. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint, but permitted the Complainant to pay the remaining amount within two months and directed the BDA to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant.
(3.) The BDA is now before us in this appeal, with a prayer to set aside the above direction to receive the payment and execute the sale deed. The case of the Appellant/BDA is that the above direction should not have been given as the State Commission had already held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Secondly, the auction purchaser/Complainant had deliberately refused to accept the confirmation letter and filed the consumer complaint to seek refund. According to the appellant, the Complainant had only sought refund of his money with interest. He had not prayed for direction to execute the sale deed.