DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.633/2006
Sh. Ajay Kumar Dey
S/o Sh. S. K. Dey
R/o P-53/11, Kabul Line,
Delhi Cantt., Delhi-110010 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through the Assistant Director (CE)
Commercial Estate Branch
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 01.11.06 Date of Order : 17.12.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
In short, the case of the Complainant is that in pursuance to the tender notice for commercial estates, he submitted a tender application form vide form No.024373 on 27.11.2001 for the allotment of unit No.15, ground floor in CSC pocket-I, Sector-9, Dwarka, Phase-1, Delhi and deposited Rs.50,000/- i.e. equal to 25% of tendered amount with OP vide bank draft No103006 dated 26.11.2001. At the time of submitting the application form, his address was H.No.72, Sector-2, Pocket-I, Dwarka, New Delhi. When nothing was heard for more than 2 years he submitted letters dated 11.12.2003 and 15.03.2014 to the OP regarding status of his tender but no intimation was received. It is submitted that during this period, he changed his address and intimated the OP vide letter dated 01.04.2004 and also requested the OP to refund the registration money if tender was not decided in his favour. He received a letter No.F-70(15)2001/CE/2113 dated 09.06.04 from the OP, in which he was informed that demand-cum- allotment letter was issued to him on 11.12.01 and he was asked to deposit the balance amount within 30 days without interest or within 180 days with interest and that in case he failed to deposit the balance premium within the prescribed period, the allotment would be cancelled and earnest money would stand forfeited due to non-payment of balance premium within prescribed period. On 26.07.04 he informed the OP that he had never received any demand-cum- allotment letter from OP’s office and requested it to re-allot the shop to him. Despite receiving the letter on 05.08.04 in the office of Asstt. Director (CE) and legal notice dated 24.07.06 when no action was taken by the OP, the complainant by pleading gross deficiency in service on the part of OP has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OP:-
- direct the OP to issue demand-cum- allotment letter in respect of Unit No.15, Ground Floor in CSC Pocket-I, Sector-9, Dwarka, Phase-I, Delhi.
- direct the OP to pay Rs.1 lac to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.
In the written statement OP, has inter-alia stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The OP has admitted that the complainant had submitted a tender application form No.024373 on 27.11.2001 for shop unit No.15, Ground Floor, C.S.C., Pocket-1, Sector-9, Dwarka, Phase-I, Delhi by depositing Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant gave the highest tender bid of Rs.2 lacs towards tender; that a demand-cum- allotment letter dated 11.12.2001 was sent to the complainant at his address i.e. H.No.72, Sector-II, Pocket-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 given by him in the tender application form; that the complainant was to make the payment within 30 days from the date of issue of the said demand letter or upto 180 days alongwith interest as mentioned in the demand letter; that in clause 3 of the demand letter it had been mentioned that no regularization of allotment was possible beyond 180 days in payment and if the complete payment with interest was not made within the said period, the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically and no refund will be applicable in such cases; that the cancellation letter was sent to the complainant on 16.09.2002. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OP. It is submitted that the letter dated 26.07.04 of the complainant was misconceived. It is submitted that the complainant knew very well about the acceptance of the tender. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Yash Pal Garg, Director (CE) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
W.A. have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had submitted a tender application form vide form No.024373 on 27.11.2001 for the allotment of a unit and deposited Rs.50,000/-. The OP vide letter dated 11.12.2001 sent a demand–cum-allotment letter to the Complainant as the address given in the tender application wherein it was mentioned that the payment be made within 30 days from the date of issue of the demand letter or upto 180 days alongwith interest as mentioned in the demand letter. If the complete payment is not made the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically and no refund will be applicable in such cases.
It is evident from the record that the Complainant had not deposited the amount with the OP. The Complainant himself has stated that he had submitted a tender application for commercial estate and deposited Rs.50,000/- i.e. equal to 25% of the tender amount with the OP. According to the OP, the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No.1040 of 2006, decided on 09.03.2010 (DDA V/s Paschim Vihar Resident Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.). The judgment of the Supreme Court in UT, Chandigarh Administration V/s Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660 was followed where relevant para is para 14. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“…. With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted 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.”
In view of above law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is a not consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, consumer booked the commercial unit and nowhere in the complaint or affidavit in evidence he has mentioned that he had applied for commercial unit for earning his livelihood.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a 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.
Announced on 17.12.2016.
