Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/320/2022

D.M. Julka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. N.K. Bhalla

23 Jul 2024

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	320 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	11.04.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	23.07.2024

 

 

 

 

D.M.Julka son of Sh.Sadhu Ram Julka, aged about 76 years, resident of House No.153, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh (Senior Citizen)       

    …..Complainant

Versus

Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh

     ….. Opposite Party

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                MEMBER

                               

Argued by:-     Sh.N.K.Bhalla, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Sachin Dhillon, Govt. Pleader for the OP

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he participated in e-auction held by OP for the purchase of Plot No.1045, Sector 38, Chandigarh and deposited earnest money of Rs.3,75,000/-. It is stated that as per terms & conditions of e-auction, in case the bidder does not deposit the required amount at the close of the bid within the stipulated period, then the EMD shall be forfeited and the bidder shall not have any claim to it whatsoever.  It is submitted that the complainant became successful in the bid for the said plot.  It is also submitted as the complainant could not deposit the remaining amount within 24 hours, so his earnest money was forfeited but some other bidders were given more than 24 hours to deposit the balance amount.  It is pleaded that his fundamental right has been violated being not treated in the same way as similarly placed persons.  It is also pleaded that the complainant sought the name of other bidder from the OP under RTI, who were given preferential treatment, but the request was turned down by the OP.  It is also stated that the amount of earnest money as fixed by the OP was Rs.3,57,050/- and therefore, the OP should have forfeited only such amount out of the total deposited amount of Rs.3,75,000/- and made refund of excess payment to the complainant but the OP failed to refund the same.  It is further pleaded that the OP failed to treat all the successful bidders equally and has violated the rights given by the Constitution of India.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed seeking refund of earnest money, excess amount as well as compensation and litigation cost.

2]       After service of notice, the OP appeared before this Commission through counsel and filed written version stating that on 21.1.2019, the complainant deposited earnest money of Rs.3,75,000/- and participated in the E-auction held on 04.02.2019 in respect of residential sites on free hold basis and submitted his auction for a sum of Rs.2,70,52,484/- for Plot No.1045, Sector 38, Chandigarh, which was accepted by the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh.  However, since the complainant failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount, as per terms & condition No.4, within 24 hours of the close of the bid in the account of Estate Office, Chandigarh, so the deposited earnest money was forfeited and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 1.3.2019 (Ann.OP-2).  It is submitted that the complainant himself deposited an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- as earnest money.  It is denied that OP fixed the amount of Rs.3,57,050/- as earnest money.  It is also submitted that the complainant has no right to claim the refund of Rs.17,950/- since this amount is not the excess amount as alleged by the complainant. It is denied that any preferential treatment to any bidder was given and that the complainant has not given the particular of any bidder to whom any preferential treatment was given. Lastly, O.P. prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions made by the OP in the written versions.    

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written submission. 

6]       The perusal of the documents on record as well as pleadings of the parties reveals that the complainant admittedly was a successful bidder in the e-auction conducted by the OP for plot in question and being the successful bidder he was to deposit 25% of the bid amount, after readjusting earnest money, within 24 hours of the close of the bid in the account of Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh.  It is observed that since the complainant has not denied that he failed to deposit the requisite amount being successful bidder, as per clause 4 of the auction notice Ann.C-1, with OP, so his earnest has rightly been forfeited. It is also observed that the claim of complainant about infringement of his fundamental right being not treated in the same way as similarly placed person is concerned, the same is not maintainable before this Consumer Commission, as the power to deal with violation of fundamental rights vest only with Hon’ble High Courts & Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 

7]       In view of the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the OP. Therefore, the present consumer complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to costs.

8]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

9]       Office is directed to return the complaint to the complainant against proper receipt and after retaining its copy.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.07.2024                                                           Sd/-

                                                           (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER