State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Shankar Lal Khemka vs W.B. Housing Infrastructure ... on 29 April, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.CC/173/2013 [MA/482/3013 arising out of CC/173/2013] DATE OF FILING:24/07/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:29/04/14 COMPLAINANT : Sri Shankar Lal Khemka 32/1/B, R. K. Samadhi Road Kolkata-700 054 OPPOSITE PARTIES : 1) West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Registered Office at HIDCO Bhavan Pemises No.35-1111 Major Arterial Road 3rd Rotary, New Town Kolkata-700 156 2) General Manager (Marketing) West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Registered Office at HIDCO Bhavan Pemises No.35-1111 Major Arterial Road 3rd Rotary, New Town Kolkata-700 156 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Mr. Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay Ld. Advocate Mr. Souvik Chatterjee Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : Mr. Somnath Maity Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to Miscellaneous Application bearing no.482 of 2013 filed by the OPs challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.
It has been stated in the Miscellaneous Application that the Complainant being desirous of purchasing and acquiring a plot of land duly applied for the same for allotment of a plot of land measuring more or less 300 sq. meter in New Town, Kolkata under HIG category with a bankers cheque no.006780 dated 24/03/2000 drawn on UTI Bank for a sum of Rs.1,07,600/- by way of application money. By letter dated 24/06/2000 issued by the OP, the Complainant was informed that the lottery for allotment would be held at Netaji Indoor Stadium on 14/07/2000. By letter dated 20/07/2000 the Complainant was, inter alia, informed by the OP that he was unsuccessful in the aforesaid lottery for allotment and that he could either withdraw the application money paid or retain the same for allotment under HIDCOs New Scheme (AA1/2) involving nearly 1,000 plots (both residential and cooperative) well before the coming Durga Puja. In response to the said intimation dated 20/07/2000 the Complainant by letter dated 08/08/2000 advised the OPs to retain the aforesaid application money of Rs.1,07,600/- paid by him under earlier scheme for allotment of a plot under the new scheme for HIG (AA1/2). But the Complainant had, however, subsequently withdrawn the said amount of Rs.1,07,600/- on 16/10/01. With the withdrawal of the said amount the retention clause of the letter dated 20/07/2000 was not attracted and the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties ceased to exist and the present complaint is not maintainable. By virtue of an erroneous letter dated 05/08/02 no right was created in favour of the Complainant as a consumer. The Complainant also filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta but on failure the Complainant has come up with the present petition of complaint.
The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant/OP of the complaint has submitted that the Complainant was unsuccessful in the lottery and he was offered to withdraw the money or to retain the said money for another scheme. It is contended that the Complainant informed the OPs that he wanted to retain the money for allotment in the new scheme, but subsequently the Complainant had withdrawn the said amount. In this connection the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has submitted that through mistake a letter of allotment was issued by the OP on 05/08/02, but by virtue of issuance of the said letter no right was created in favour of the Complainant, in as much as, the money had already been withdrawn by the Complainant.
The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has further submitted that the Complainant filed writ application before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta but could not succeed.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant had withdrawn the amount, but with the issuance of the letter dated 05/08/02 right was created in favour of the Complainant.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has further referred to the letter issued by the OPs on 25/05/13 whereby the OPs requested the Complainant to take refund of Rs.6,45,597/- only from the accounts section of the Corporation. The Learned Counsel thus submitted that the redeposit has been admitted by the OPs in the said letter.
We have heard the submission made by both sides.
The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has referred to the decision reported in I (2013) CPJ 593 (NC) [Major Jai Parkash Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.] wherein it has been held that reallotment cannot be sought as Complainant no more remained consumer by taking refund of the amount. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Complainant although opted for retention of the amount, subsequently had withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,07,600/- on 16/10/01. It is the specific case of the OPs that the letter dated 05/08/02 for allotment of plot was wrongly issued and the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta has been pleased to hold that the said letter could not create any right title and interest in respect of the writ Petitioner.
Relying on the decision cited above, we are of the view that since the amount had been withdrawn, the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer. The petition of complaint is, therefore, not maintainable.
The Miscellaneous Application 482 of 2013 is allowed. The petition of complaint is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT