State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Huda vs Virender Kumar on 30 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.68 of 2005 Date of Institution: 17.1.2005 Date of Decision: 30.09.2010 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator. 2. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra. ..Appellants-Opp. Parties Versus Virender Kumar son of Sh.Khazanchi Lal R/o village and post office Kalayat Distt. Kaithal. ..Respondent-Complainant BEFORE: Honble Mr.Justice R.S.Madan, President. Dr.Rekha Sharma, Member. Sh.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr.Raman Gaur Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Rakesh Kumar Advocate for the respondent. ORDER
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN PRESIDENT:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 03.12.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, following relief was granted:-
For the reasons recorded above, I accept the complaint and direct the Ops to pay 10% p.a. interest on the amount deposited by complainant from the date of deposit till delivery of actual possession. The Ops are further directed to deliver the actual physical possession and not to recover any interest on the instalments till the delivery of actual possession. This order be complied within a period of 60 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which the penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be taken.
The brief facts of the present case not disputed between the parties are that complainant had purchased a kilosic type booth bearing No.220 situated at Sector-17, HUDA, Rohtak in an open auction for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- vide allotment letter No.17199 dated 24.9.2001. As per version of the complainant the offer of possession was to be delivered after completing the development work in the area. By way of filing the present complaint the grievance of the complainant is that after depositing the huge amount, the opposite parties have failed give the actual possession of the booth site and also failed to provide all the basic amenities in the area where the plot is situated. Further the grievance of the complainant is that inspite of providing the development work such like pavement, path and platform etc. in the area, the opposite parties have charged higher rate of interest from him. Thus, attributing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant. While denying the claim of complainant the opposite parties took the plea that all the requisite basic amenities like water supply, roads, electricity and sewerage were provided in the area. The possession of the plot in question was delivered to the complainant after completing the development works. It was further pleaded that the opposite parties had charged the interest as per HUDA policy and the complainant is legally bund to pay the same as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It was further stated that as the complainant had purchased the booth in question in an open auction on as and where basis, he could not be termed as a Consumer. It was prayed that complaint be dismissed.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
Heard.
At the very outset the question for consideration before us is that whether the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer or not?
The Honble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & another Versus Amarjeet Singh & Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 660 has held that:-
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 therefore be 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 constructed 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 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 fora 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 booth site in question was purchased by the complainant in an open auction, therefore, the present case is fully 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 impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, we do not think it appropriate to go into the merits of the case as the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is barred in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singhs case (Supra).
Accordingly this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
However, in terms of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the petitioner/complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to seek remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised. Revision Petition/Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in above terms.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of the appeal is ordered to be refunded to the appellants on expiry of period of limitation for filing revision/appeal, if any, filed in this case.
30th Sep. 2010 Justice R.S.Madan President Dr.Rekha Sharma, Member Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.