 "Relief for purchaser in auction")
The forest department of the Government of Bihar had seized trees which had been illegally cut down for their wood. Later, it published a notice in a newspaper , announcing the auction of second -class sagwan (teakwood) timber of these trees.
Vijay Singh, one of the bidders in the auction on June 27, gave a bid of Rs 1.1 lakh which was accepted by the Forest Pramandal Officer of Begusarai. Singh later found it was not teakwood and protested to the authorities. Nothing was done to redress his grievance. He then filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
The forest department contested, saying the terms of the bid required the bidders to satisfy themselves about the quality and quantity of the wood before participating in the auction. Vijay had succeeded in the bid and taken the wood without lodging any complaint or protest. It was much later that he alleged it was not teakwood.
The consumer forum, which was divided in its opinion and upheld the complaint by a majority judgement given by two members, with the presiding officer giving a dissenting order. The forest department appealed to the Bihar State Commission, which allowed the appeal filed and dismissed the complaint.
Singh approached the National Commission. The Commission observed the public notice given in the newspaper showed that auction was for sagwan or teakwood. At the time of handing over the wood, the Assistant Conservator of Forests had certified the wood seized appeared to be teakwood from its outer appearance. To confirm this, he had requested the conservator of forests to get the wood examined. The examination report revealed that even though it was not teakwood, its outer appearance resembled teakwood.
The Commission observed the entire confusion was due to the deceptive appearance of the wood, giving a wrong impression to both the government officials who auctioned it and to Singh who bought it.
So, though the terms required the bidder to check the quality and quantity of the wood before submitting his bid, it was not possible to visually detect the difference in the wood. The transaction had taken place under a bona fide but mistaken impression that it was teakwood.
The Commission observed the forest department had made a mistake in announcing the auction to be for teakwood. There was no reason why Singh should be made to suffer for this lapse. The Commission concluded the department was liable to supply Singh with an equivalent quantity of second-class teakwood, else it should refund the amount received by it, with suitable interest. It also held that Vijay was entitled to compensation as his money was blocked all these years.
Accordingly, by its order of May 20, 2016 delivered by Justice V K Jain for the Bench with Anup Thakur, the National Commission directed Singh to return the wood, after which the department must refund Rs 1.1 lakh along with compensation by way of 10 per cent simple interest of receipt of the amount till its refund.
The case took 20 long years, before three tiers of the consumer fora. Though the purchaser got an order in his favour, the compensation awarded towards blocked money was a measly 10 per cent, without considering the financial implications of having to store and preserve wood for two decades. So, there are times when the consumer is left dissatisfied even though he succeeds in litigation.
The author is a consumer activist
