Haryana

Ambala

CC/101/2022

Deepak Batra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Administrator - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Mehta

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  101 of 2022.

                                                          Date of Institution         :    21.03.2022.

                                                          Date of decision   :    13.09.2022.

 

1.       Deepak Batra (aged about 52 years) son of Shri Kundan Lal Batra,    resident of House No.403, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

2.       Rohit Arora (aged about 46 years) son of Late Shri Vijay Mohan Arora   resident of House No.4, Shakti Colony, Near SBI Main Branch, Karnal.

 

                                                                                      ……. Complainants.

 

Versus

 

Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, C-3, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                      ..…. Opposite Party.

                            

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri S.K.Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP already ex parte.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay EMD amount of Rs.3,31,700/- to the complainant alongwith interest @18% from the date of its deposit till realization.  
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  
3. To pay Rs.33,000/-, as litigation expenses.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that complainants applied for the SCO, three storey without basement (5.5x22) at Sector-10, Ambala permissible FAR­­­­-3 having auction ID 1984 having six nos. of SCOs 28, 32,35, 36,37 and 38 against event notice issued by OP and the complainants deposited EMD of Rs.3,31,700/- on 27.07.2021 for auction was to be held on 30.07.2021. As per the instructions of OP E-auction of the above mentioned SCOs was started on 30.07.2021 at 10 AM but due to some technical reasons in the portal of OP, E-Auction was stopped within 30 minutes from the start of its time and after that the OP intimated about the postponement of the above mentioned auction and the next date of auction was fixed as 31.07.2021, information of which was received by the complainants on the Registered E-mail ID at 7:30 PM. As per intimation of OP, complainants participated again on 31.07.2021 in the E-auction and complainants were the Highest Bidder in the first round as per E-Auction policy of the OP and on the basis of Highest Bidder, complainants were entitled for the selection of SCOs (from SCO 28,32,35,36,37 & 38) within 10 minutes but they shocked and surprised to know that only SCO No.28 was appearing in the selection list instead of 6.S.C.O. No.28, as such they did not select the same. Complainants enquired about the same on help line No.6354910186. During the selection time the officials of the OP told that due to lesser number of Bidders received, E-Auction of 5 S.C.Os were cancelled and only one SCO NO.28 was put up for auction and they were told by the officials of OP that final list of property was uploaded late evening on 29 July, 2021, information of which was not intimated to the complainants by the OP that the OP has withdrawn the five SCOs from E-Auction on the registered mobile or registered E-mail ID of the complainants. It is the duty of the OP to inform the Registered Participants of the E-auction which shows the clear cut deficiency on the part of the OP. If the OP intimated the curtailments of the SCOs well within time to the complainants, in that event the complainants may plan out their strategy accordingly. After that the complainants refused to accept the SCO No.28 and intimated the same to the OP. Thereafter the complainant made several E-mails to the OP and also personally visited the office of OP and enquired about the same but got no response. On 01.08.2021 the complainants made written request to the OP to refund the EMD amount of Rs.3,31,700/- and the same was received by the OP. Complainant also sent the registered letters to the OPs and various authorities in this regard but of no use. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2022.

4.                Counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of complainants as Annexure CW1/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and have also gone through the record very carefully.

6.                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainants reiterated the version as narrated in the complaint and prayed that complaint may be allowed.

7.                From the perusal of the case file, it has been revealed that complainants applied for SCO three story without basement (5.5x22) at Sector 10, Ambala permissible FAR-3 having auction ID 1984 having six nos. of SCOs 28, 32,35, 36,37 and 38, against event notice issued by the OP.  It is not disputed that the complainants deposited the earnest money of Rs.3,31,700/- with the OP vide receipt dated 27.07.2021, Annexure C-11. The E-auction of SCOs was started on 30.07.2021 at 10:00 AM but due to technical reasons in the portal of OP the E-auction was stopped within 30 minutes from its start after that the OP intimated about the postponement of the above mentioned auction which was fixed for 30.07.2021 and fixed the next date of auction as 31.07.2021, information of which was received by the complainant on the Registered E-mail ID at 7:30 PM. As per intimation of OP, complainants participated again on 31.07.2021 in the E-auction and they were the Highest Bidder in the first round as per E-Auction policy of the OP and on the basis of Highest Bidder, they were entitled for the selection of SCOs (from SCO 28,32,35,36,37 & 38) within 10 minutes but they shocked and surprised to know that only SCO No.28 was appearing in the selection list instead of 6.S.C.O. No.28, as such they did not select the same. The complainants enquired on help_line No.6354910186 of the OP. During the selection time the officials of the OP told that due to lesser number of Bidders received E-Auction of 5 S.C.Os were cancelled and only one SCO NO.28 was put up for auction and they were told by the officials of OP that final list of property was uploaded late evening on 29 July, 2021, information of which was not intimated to the complainants by the OP that it has withdrawn the five SCOs from E-Auction on the registered mobile or registered E-mail ID of the complainants. OP is duty bound to inform the Registered Participants of the E-auction which shows the clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. If the OP intimated the curtailments of the SCOs well within time to them, in that event they may plan out their strategy accordingly. After that the complainants refused to accept the SCO No.28 and intimated the same to the OP. Thereafter complainants made several E-mails to the OP and also personally visited the office of OP and enquired about the same but of no avail. On 01.08.2021 complainants made written request to the OP to refund the EMD amount of Rs.3,31,700/- and the same was received by the OP. The contentions of the complainants went un-rebutted as the OP inspite of service of the notice have preferred not to appear before this Commission. Meaning thereby, OP has nothing to say in its defence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the dispute relating to electronic service provider falls within the ambit of Section 2 (17) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

Section 2 (17) of Consumer Protection Act:-

“(17) Electronic service provider means a person who provides technologies or processes to enable a product seller to engage in advertising or selling goods or services to a consumer and includes any online market place or online auction site”

 

          In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no other option, except to believe the version of the complainants, which is duly supported by their affidavits and other supporting documents. In this view of the matter, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainants are thus entitled to get the refund of the amount of Rs.3,31,700/-, deposited as EMD with the OP.  Be that as it may, the OP by not refunding the amount of EMD, have committed deficiency in service. The OP is thus not only liable to refund the amount of the EMD along with interest, but is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by them along with litigation expenses. Thus, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

 

1. To refund the amount of Rs.3,31,700/- i.e. EMD amount to the complainants along with interest @ 4 % per annum from the date of deposit i.e 27.07.2021 till its realization
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 13.09.2022

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President