National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs C.M. Pathak And Sudha Pathak on 27 September, 2000
ORDER
1. This is a revision against the order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, by which it sustained the order of the State Commission directing Ghaziabad Development Authority to pay a sum of Rs.4,205/- as interest to the petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder for a plot of land on his deposit of Rs.13,000/-. A sum of Rs.13,000/- was deposited as earnest money along with the application for a plot of land. Under the Scheme floated by GDA, the bidder had to make their application latest by 31st July, 1991. Application forms were to be collected from the specified branches of Oriental Bank of commerce. The applicants Dr. C.M. Pahak and Miss Sudha Pathak, collected their form and mae an application in the prescribed manner in the Chandigarh Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce.
2. It was specifically stated in the brochure that "dates of lottery for reservation and allotment shall be published in the newspaper". The petitioner did not find out the date of lottery nor did he attend the lottery although the brochure clearly stated that applicant could be present.
3. It is also the case of GDA that names of the successful candidates were published in the newspapers, the unsuccessful applicants were asked to take back their money from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The procedure for collecting the money as laid down in Clause 9 of the brochure is as under:-
"9.00 UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS:
9.10 Those applicants who have not been allotted the house will be returned their registration amount without interest, if the period of deposit of such money with GDA is less than one year.
9.20 However, if the period of deposit is more than one year 5% simple interest shall be paid for the entire period of the deposit.
9.30 For the purpose of calculation of the period of deposit, the month of deposit and refund shall not be counted. Any period after the date of start of refund of registration amount of unsuccessful applicants, shall not be counted for the purpose of calculation of "period of deposit".
9.40 The registration amount shall be refunded to the unsuccessful applicants by Oriental Bank of Commerce, B-193, Rahul Place, Lohiya Nagar, Ghaziabad directly.
9.50 The refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicants shall be started after one month of the draw.
9.60 Unsuccessful applicants should contract personally or by pot only the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, B-193, Rahul Place, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad for refund of Registration amount. They are required to surrender the original copy of challan from (applicant's copy) duly signed on reverse of the challan form.
9.70 Refund for NRI's will be made in Indian Currency.
9.80 GDA itself does not entertain any applicants directly for refund of registration amount.
4. The grievance of the applicant i that he deposited the application in Chandigarh Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce on 27.9.1991 along with the earnest money of Rs.13,000/-. The complainant did not hear anything from GDA for nearly six months. He than wrote two letters dated 2.2.1992 and 6.8.1992 enquiring about the fate of his application. NO reply was sent by GDA. The complainant then approached the Oriental Bank of Commerce requesting for the refund of earnest money in case they had not been successful in the draw of lot. The Oriental Bank of Commerce sent to the complainant a sum of Rs.13,000/- along with a the covering letter dated 7.5.1993. The complainant thereafter demanded interest on the earnest money for the period during which the amount had remained with the Bank. The Bank declined to pay any interest. The complainant thereafter rote several letters to GDA demanding interest which did not elicit any reply from them. Thereafter, complainant approached the Consumer court at Chandigarh which allowed the complainant's claim for interest.
5. Several questions have been raised about the correctness of he decisions of the District Forum and the State Commission. The first question is about the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It has been argued that an unsuccessful bidder cannot be treated as a complainant. The law in this regard is well settled. The complainant had applied for a plot of land but he was unsuccessful in the draw of lots. The complainant on these facts cannot claim to be a consumer vis-a-vis GDA. Therefore, this complaint filed by the complainant with the District Forum was misconceived should have been dismissed.
6. Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocate, has also drawn our attention to a judgment of this Commission in this case of GDA v. Sunita Garg Revision Petition No.163 of 1991 judgment dated 18.3.1992 where on similar facts this Commission held that the complaint should not have been entertained by the Distt. Forum, Chandigarh, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner in that case had made her initial deposit for a flat at the Chandigarh Branch of the Vijaya Bank. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not successful in the lottery. The Distt. Forum held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition against GDA as GDA did not have any office or branch within the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court. The State Commission reversed that decision. On Revision, the National Commission held that the mere fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat was remitted through the branch of the Vijaya Bank of Chandigarh will not entitle the complainant to contained that any part of the cause of action had arisen in Chandigarh.
7. Lastly, there is another difficulty. The brochure clearly indicated the procedure for obtaining refund. The Bank in which the amount had been deposited was entrusted the job of giving refund to the unsuccessful bidder. The complainant got back his deposit as soon as he approached the bank. He had earlier sent letters to GDA which were not answered. The complainant had not pursued the line of action for getting refund specifically laid down in the brochure. The only difficulty of the complainant was that he was unaware of the date of draw of lots. The draw of lot was advertised in the newspaper. The complainant could have been present at the draw of lots. The complainant should have been vigilant. GDA had also advised the various branches of Oriental Bank of Commerce to refund the amount deposited by the unsuccessful bidders. The complainant did not try to find out from the Bank whether his name was included in the names of unsuccessful bidders. Be that as it may, he got back his money as soon as he approached the bank.
8. Under these circumstances, we are of the view t hat the order passe by the District Forum and sustained by the State Commission cannot be upheld. We allow this Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders. The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.