Delhi

South Delhi

CC/1279/2007

RAJINDER KUM ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DDA - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

ONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA

(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.

 

                                Case No. 1279/07

 

Sh. Rajinder  Kumar Arora,

10/44, Geeta Colony,

Gandhi Nagar,

Delhi – 110031.                                             - Complainant

 

Vs

 

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, Near INA,

New Delhi – 110023.   

 

1. Vice Chairman

2. Director Commercial Estate                         - Opposite Party

 

                                                                                                                                          Date of Institution: 07.12.2007

                                                  Date of decision: 20.3.2015

                                      O R D E R

 

          Complaint’s case is that he purchased Shop No. 18 C.S.C., DDA Market, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara in an Open Auction on “As is where is basis” as per terms and condition No. 2(1) vide possession letter No. F.3(4)/98/CE/1784 dated 26.4.2000 and deposited the entire payment in time and he was made to sign the terms and conditions but thereafter, he was asked to deposit another amount of Rs. 1,20,254/- while Shop No. 19, 21, 24, 25 & 26 of the same size in the same market were not issued any Demand letters.  He wrote letters dated  20.9.07, 5.10.07 and 22.11.07 to the concerned officers of the OP  but  was not given any satisfactory reply.  According to him, if all shop-keepers pay the Land Difference amount, he would also pay the same but without any interest because the excess payment claimed by the OP is not

Case No. 1279/07

 due to his fault.  Feeling aggrieved he has filed the present complaint.

        In the written statement, the OP has stated that the shop No. 18, Mansarovar Garden, Shahdara was auctioned on 11.11.98 in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2,33,000/- having the area 6.15 sqm. On the basis of ‘As is where is basis’ and further subject to the terms and conditions of the auction; that the complainant was asked to submit his option vide letter dated 10.10.01 and 15.3.05 when it came to the notice of the DDA that the actual area of the shop is 8.14 sqm., on the following two options: (1) Either to pay the difference in the cost of the unit based on the tender rates, or (2) To opt for a shop on the basis of the area tendered, in the same or adjoining market; that the complainant vide his letter dated 21.9.06 requested that possession of the shop may be handed over to him and he is ready to pay the difference and the same amount may be intimated to him; that  the  complainant was informed vide letter dated 11.7.07 to deposit the difference in the cost of shop and interest was calculated @ 7% p.a. upto 5/2007 which is further to be updated upto the date of payment; that the complainant vide letter dated 17.9.07 informed that he had made the payment as per the auction; that he is ready to pay the difference in the cost of the shop but interest may not be demanded; that, however, he is ready to pay the same if others pay the same otherwise he is not ready to pay; that the complainant is representing again and again for waiving off interest; that the complainant was again informed vide letter dated 1.11.07 to deposit the demanded amount; that he made the representation to the Director (Public Grievances)  DDA   vide   letter  dated   26.9.07  and  also represented to the Vigilance Deptt. of DDA through Governor, Delhi vide letter dated 22.11.07; that as regards the demand  from  other  similar  persons,  the  demand  is being raised

Case No. 1279/07

from other –purchasers of shop also; that this was a clerical mistake and the complainant is required to make the payment since the mistake came to the notice of the department; that the possession letter was issued on 26.4.2000; that it is mentioned in the terms and conditions of auction Clause-XII that the area of shop specifically indicated at the time of bid shall be used by the allottee; that the discrepancy came into the notice of DDA when report was received from site Engineer. Hence it is prayed that this complaint be dismissed.

        Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP.

        Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Yashpal Garg, Director (CL) of the OP has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

    Written arguments have been filed on behalf of OP.

        We have heard the counsel for OP.  However, none has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. We have also gone through the file very carefully.

        The submission of the counsel for  OP is that this being a case related to purchase/sale in public auction, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  He has placed reliance on the judgment reported as UT Chandigarh Administration and Anr. Vs Amarjeet Singh and Ors - II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC).

        It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that initially the complainant had been asked to deposit on the basis that the size of the shop in question was 6.15 sqm.  Subsequently,  it  transpired that

Case No. 1279/07

the actual area of the shop in question in fact was 8.14 sqm.  Accordingly, the complainant was asked to deposit  Rs. 1,20,254/- towards the difference amount.  Therefore, it cannot be said to be a fault of the complainant and hence the demand of the excess amount along with interest @ 7% p.a. was not justified.  The complainant could not be asked to pay the said amount along with interest though the complainant was liable to pay the difference amount without any interest.  However, insistence of the complainant that if the other shopkeepers also pay the difference amount, he  would  pay the difference amount only then, is not justified.  The complainant ought to have deposited the difference amount of Rs. 1,20,254/- without any interest to the OP in order to show his bonafide.  Even then if the OP did not become ready to give the possession of the shop in question to him, he was entitled to file a complaint but, however, he did not do so. 

        Admittedly the shop in question was purchased by him in open auction on “as is where is basis”.  Therefore, the law laid down in the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel for the OP is squarely applicable to the facts to the present case in which it has been held that a purchaser/lessee in public auction is not a Consumer and the owner is not a ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’ and that any grievance by purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute.  It has been  held  that  the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites.  Therefore, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable. 

        Case No. 1279/07

 

        In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(ANJUN PARVEEN ALAM)        (S.R. AGRAWAL)                   (N.K. GOEL)     MEMBER                        MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Announced on 20.3.2015