State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Huda vs Raj Kumar on 30 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1711 of 2004 Date of Institution: 08.07.2004 Date of Decision: 30.09.2010 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority Panchkula through its Chairman, Chandigarh. 2. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula. 3. Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula. 4. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra. ..Appellants-Opp. Parties Versus Raj Kumar son of Shri Ved Pal r/o main Bazar, Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. ..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.R.S.Longia Advocate for the respondent. ORDER
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN PRESIDENT:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 21.05.2004 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, we accept the complaint and direct the Ops to charge the interest on Rs.7610.90 ps. From 21.9.1987 instead of 1984 @ 10% per annum instead of 18% per annum. We further direct the Ops to refund the balance amount charged as excess amount with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. It is made clear that the finding of this order will not affect the decision of Civil Court. The parties are let to bear their own costs.
The brief facts of the present case not disputed between the parties are that complainant had purchased a SCF site bearing No.1 situated at Sector-17, HUDA, Kurukshetra in an open auction on 26.11.1984 for a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- vide allotment letter dated 03.12.1984. As per version of the complainant the dimension area of the SCF was 5.5 X 25 meter which was lateron increased. By way of filing the present complaint the grievance of the complainant is that inspite of giving possession of the SCF in question the opposite parties have charged Rs.66,590/- as cost of increased area and Rs.93894/- on account of extension fee from the complainant. 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 the possession of the SCF site in question was offered to the complainant on 21.9.1987. It was further pleaded that the opposite parties had charged Rs.66590/-
as cost of increased area and Rs.99894/- on account of extension fee 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 pleaded that along with this complaint, the complainant has filed a civil suit No.399 of 1997 before the Civil Court on the similar fact and as such the present complaint was not entertainable before the Consumer Forum. It was further stated that as the complainant had purchased the SCF site 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.24,100/- 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.