JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

            The petitioner Indore Development Authority invited tenders for allotment of plots in scheme number 94 which the authority was to develop in Indore. The complainants submitted tenders for allotment of residential plots in the aforesaid scheme and the bids given by them are stated to be the highest bids. The security deposit which the complainant/respondents had deposited along with the bid however was returned to them on the ground that because of a stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh the petitioner had cancelled the tenders and decided to return the FDR representing the security amount. The complainants, however, did not accept those fixed deposits and sent the same again to the Authority saying that they would like to wait for the plots. Subsequently, it transpired that there was no stay in respect of Khasra Number 206 of village Piplihana where the plots for which bids were given by the complainants were to be located.

2.      Subsequently, the petitioner offered plots to the complainant at the rate of 2800 per square feet but the allotments were not accepted by them. The petitioner later informed the complainants that it was not possible to allot plots to them they having not accepted the plots at the price of Rs.2800/- and, therefore, the security amount was being returned to them along with the said letter.

3.      Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints.

4.      The complaints were dismissed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 14.11.2008 passed in the matter of Durgesh Bajaj  the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed as under:-

In view of the above factual matrix, we are of the view that Indore Development Authority should be directed to charge a sum of Rs.2800/- per sq. mtr. and 9% interest thereon upto the date of final stage for allotment of this plot. We reiterate that the Indore Development Authority shall first ascertain that the plot is not encumbered by any stay order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

            Vide impugned order dated 12.11.2008 passed in the matter of Vikram Verma the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed as under:-

In the present case, there was no  stay from the High Court or any other impediment in the transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Indore Development Authority should reconsider the offer and if the Authority wants to sell the plot at the rate fixed by the Collector i.e. Rs.2800/- per sq.m., the Indore Development Authority should negotiate with the appellant and pass an appropriate order. The decision should be taken within three months of the offer filed by the complainant.

5.      Being aggrieved from the orders of the State Commission the Authority is before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

6.      The submission of the counsel for the complainant is that since the bids given by the complainants were the highest bids they were required to be accepted by the Authority. However, the record would show that the bids were not accepted by the Authority or at least the acceptance of the bids was never conveyed to the complainants. A concluded contract comes into effect only when an offer is made the said offer is accepted, and the acceptance of the offer is conveyed to the person who has made the offer. Since admittedly no acceptance of the offer of the complainants was conveyed to them no concluded contract between them and the petitioner Authority came into effect. As a result there is no privity of contract between the parties and the complainants cannot be said to have hired or availed the services of the petitioner Authority. The complainants, therefore, cannot be said to be consumers within the meaning of section 2)(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

7.      Though the authority later on offered plots at a higher rate of Rs.2800/- per square meter, the said offer was never accepted by the complainants. The complainants/respondents, therefore, had no locus standi to institute the consumer complaints against the Authority and the State Commission was not justified in passing the impugned orders.

8.      The Ld. counsel for the complainants submits that the grounds raised before this Commission were never raised by the petitioner Authority before the State Commission. That to my mind would be of no consequence since the entire issue is purely an issue of law and, therefore, can be considered at any stage.

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petitions are allowed and the consumer complaints are consequently dismissed with no order as to cost.

10.    It is made clear that dismissal of the consumer complaints shall not come in the way of complainants availing such remedy other than the consumer complaint, as may be available to them in law, against the petitioner.