State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Malhotra vs The Karnal Improvement Trust on 10 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No. 1192 of 2003 Date of Institution: 11.6.2003 Date of Decision: 10.09.2010 Ramesh Malhotra son of Sh. Tarsem Chand Malhotra, R/o 1359/7, Urban Estate, Karnal. Appellant- Complainant. VERSUS 1 The Karnal Improvement trust, Karnal through Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum- Authority, Nehru Place, Karnal. 2 The State of Haryana through Collector, Karnal. Respondents / OPs. BEFORE:- Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. Sh. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. Present:- Mr.J.K. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Kamal, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R:
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.4.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in complaint No.456 of 2000 filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondent-opposite parties has been dismissed.
It is admitted case between the parties that appellant-complainant had purchased a booth site bearing No. 206 in Extension of Subzi Mandi Karnal under Scheme No.67 from the respondents-opposite parties in an Open Auction held on 29.12.1999 vide confirmation letter dated 10.4.2000 being the highest bidder.
The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not removed the live electric wires passing over the booth site despite repeated requests and also illegally demanded Rs.67,750/- vide letter dated 7.6.2000 as second installment in respect of the booth site in question. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the appellant-complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement the opposite parties denied any kind of deficiency of service on the ground that the booth site in question was purchased by the complainant in an Open Auction therefore, his case could not be termed as Consumer Dispute and prayed dismissal of the complaint.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum found no substance in the stand taken by the complainant and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 28.4.2003.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appellant-complainant has come up in appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in this case, the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 S.C.C. 660 is reproduced as under:-
..Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amenities are available, he would offer a higher amount. If there are no amenities, of if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter he heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided. With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted from sites to be formed), the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a trader or service provider and the grievance does not relate to any matter in regard to which a complaint can be filed. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the for a under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites.
Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the booth site in question in an Open Auction on as and where basis and no assurance was given by the opposite parties as service provider. Thus, the present case is covered by Amarjeet Singhs case (Supra), wherein it has been made clear that any grievance of the purchaser/lessee who purchases the site in an Open Auction cannot be termed as a Consumer Dispute and the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide any complaint.
Thus, the District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and we do not find any ground to differ with the reasoning adopted by the District Forum in the impugned order. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
However, in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial institute (1995) 3 SCC, 583, the respondent/complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to seek remedy before the competent Court, if so advised.
10th September 2010. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.