BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          20.03.2015

                                                        Date of Decision:            30.11.2015

Sanjay Bhatia son of Shri G.D. Bhatia, resident of 2066/2, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Greater Mohali Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Mohali.

2.     The Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Development Authority, Mohali.

3.     The Accounts Officer, Greater Mohali Development Authority, Mohali.

                                                                        ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Rajesh Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri G.S. Arshi, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    pay him interest to the tune of Rs.4,58,820/- @ 18% per annum on Rs.9,55,875/- from 16.04.2012 to 14.12.2014.

(b)    pay him Rs.4,19,250/- for loss of rent.

(c)    pay him Rs.5,00,000/- for mental tension and agony.

(d)    refund him the forfeited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit.

(e)    pay him Rs.33,000/- as litigation charges

                The case of the complainant is that in response to invitation of bids for 700 built up booths in Mohali, the complainant submitted bid  alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- for allotment of booth out of 72 booths i.e. 36 on ground and 36 on first floor in Sector 53, Mohali. The reserve price of one booth was Rs.12,74,500/-.  The complainant gave second highest bid of Rs.12,74,500/-.  The preferential location of the booth was to be given to the highest bidder and second preferential location of booth was to be given to the second highest bidder and so on.  The OPs informed the complainant vide letter dated 25.01.2012 that he was successful in the bid.  The complainant deposited Rs.9,55,875/- (Rs.1,00,000/- with the application and Rs.8,55,875/- on 16.04.2012) i.e. 75% of the bid amount within stipulated time.  As per Clause (2) in brochure Ex.C-1 the choice of location of booth in a particular market was to be given to the allottees in descending order of the quoted bid price.  The complainant opted for booth No.37 first floor in Sector 53, Mohali. In fact the complainant had purchased two booths in the scheme and opted for Booth No.34 (Ground Floor) and 37 (First Floor), in Sector 53, Mohali.  The complainant purchased these booths for earning his livelihood by way of self employment.  The OPs have not got demarcated the land before offer and allotment of booth in question due to shortage of space and High Tension Electric wire which was going over and above the booth due to which the construction was not started by the OPs for the above said two booths. However, construction of other booths was being done by the OPs.  Accordingly  the complainant requested vide letters dated 15.01.2013, 15.03.2013, 26.03.2013 to the OPs to cancel the allotment and re-allot the booth sites in Sector 63, 64 and 65, Mohali.  The OPs vide letter dated 05.09.2013 informed the complainant that his case for allotment of alternative booth is under consideration in Sector 53.  As there was no response from the OPs, the complainant again vide letter dated 10.12.2013 requested the OPs to either allot the booth in Sector 53 on reserve  price or alternatively allot any booth in 59, 61, 64 in 247 booths scheme. The OPs vide letter dated 14.11.2013 asked the complainant to be present in their office on 29.11.2013 for consideration of his case for allotment of alternative booth in Sector 53, Mohali.  As per the complainant on the day of meeting, the officials of the OPs offered him the alternative site out of the left over available sites in Sector 53, Mohali. The offered sites were not of good location and, therefore, the complainant did not accept the same. The complainant again requested vide letter dated 20.01.2014 for allotment of alternative booth in Sector 53 from left out booths on reserve price or alternative booth in Sector 59, 61,64 Mohali.

                The complainant got allotted another booth from the OPs in 247 Booth Scheme separately launched on 01.11.2013 and the complainant was allotted Booth No.212, Sector 64, Mohali. The complainant deposited Rs.1.00 as earnest money and total cost of the booth was Rs.59,50,000/-.  The complainant requested the OPs vide letter dated 03.02.2014 either to allot alternative booth in same Sector at Reserve price or adjust the 75% paid amount i.e. Rs.9,55,875/- towards sale consideration of booth No.212, Sector 64, Mohali. The complainant further sent reminder dated 17.02.2014.  The OPs vide letter dated 05.05.2014 demanded from the complainant service tax amounting to Rs.39,382/- for booth No.37 which was never given to the complainant.  The complainant  again requested the OPs vide letter dated 15.05.2014 for allotment of alternative booth in Sector 53, Mohali on reserve price or adjustment of amount paid in booth No.212, Sector 64, Mohali. As the payment of the complainant was struck off with the OPs, last date for payment of amount for booth No.212 Sector 64 had expired and the amount of initial deposit of Rs.1.00 lac was forfeited by the OP.  The complainant requested the OPs vide letter dated 26.06.2014 for refund of Rs.9,75,875/- alongwith interest or allot alternative booth in Sector 53 on reserve price.  However, the complainant learnt orally that the OPs have adjusted Rs.9,75,875/- in booth No.212, Sector 64, Mohali but no written intimation to this effect was given to the complainant by the OPs.  The complainant vide request dated 04.09.2014 sought refund of the amount lying deposited against Booth No.37, Sector 53 or Booth No.212, Sector 64, Mohali. The OPs refunded Rs.9,55,875/- on 16.12.2014 without any interest but forfeited Rs.1.00 lac deposited against booth No.212, Sector 64. The complainant remained without booth inspite of deposit of Rs.9,55,875/- on 16.04.2012 and he has lost interest @ 18% on the above amount upto 16.12.2014.  The complainant has been running his business from tenanted premises and paying rent @ Rs.11,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 18.04.2012 to 17.07.2012, Rs.12,500/- w.e.f. 18.07.2012 to 17.06.2013, Rs.13,500/- w.e.f. 18.07.2013 to 17.06.2014 and Rs.14,850/- w.e.f. 18.07.2014 to 17.12.2014.   With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             The OPs in their written statement have pleaded that the consumer is not consumer as he is auction purchaser and further he has purchased the booth for commercial purposes. The amount paid in respect of booth was adjusted towards booth in Sector 64 in another scheme on the request of the complainant.  The complainant defaulted in not making the payment in respect of the booth in another scheme.  On merits, it is admitted that construction on booth No.30 to 36 on ground floor and Booth No.37,42,43 and 66 to 72 were not done due to non availability of complete sites.  The complainant had opted for booth No.13 in place of booth No.36 as an alternative booth.  The amount of Rs.9,55,875/- against booth No.37 in Sector 53 was adjusted against booth No.212 Sector 64 on the request of the complainant.  The complainant had failed to deposit 25% of the amount against booth No.212 Sector 64 even after adjustment of Rs.9,55,875/-.  Therefore, after forfeiting earnest money of Rs.1.00 lac remaining amount of Rs.9,55,875/- was refunded to the complainant.   The proposal for allotment of alternative booth to the complainant was discussed but in the meeting on 29.11.2013 he refused to the said proposal.  The complainant failed to make payment of 25% of the amount of the bid against booth No.212 Sector 64 which was short by Rs.4,31,625/- even after adjusting Rs.1.00 lac as earnest money and Rs.9,55,875/- of booth No.37.  Accordingly order dated 16.12.2014 was passed for refund of Rs.9,55,875/- to the complainant. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-56.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Rajdeep Kaur, Estate Officer Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

6.             Admittedly the complainant was successful bidder for allotment of booth No.37 in Sector 53 in the 700 built up booths as per Ex.C-1. As per the complainant in pursuance of his successful he was the second highest bidder as he had quoted Rs.12,75,000/- for booth No.37, Sector 53 and deposited  75% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs.9,55,875/- on 14.06.2012 with the OPs. Due to high tension wire passing through the site for booth No.37 the OPs subsequently failed to allot the site to the complainant and, therefore, in its meeting dated 29.11.2013 the OPs have offered alternate site to the complainant. The complainant did not accept the offer of alternate site at the bid price, rather made a request to the OPs to allot him alternative site on the reserve price of Rs.10.00 lacs and the said request was not accepted by the OPs. In the meantime OPs floated another scheme of 247 booth sites in Sector 64, Mohali as per brochure Ex.C-11. The complainant gave the bid for one of the booth in the newly floated scheme and his bid was successful for booth No.212, Sector 64. Perusal of Ex.C-11 shows the details of dates and events. As per Clause-5 the publication of the result was on 24.12.2013 and the successful applicant was to deposit 25% of the quoted price of the booth site within 30 days from the date of publication of result i.e. the cut off date for deposit of 25% amount is 23.01.2014.  The complainant has not shown the deposit of said amount by the said cut off date. Rather  as per Ex.C-12 has made a request to the OPs on 03.12.2014 to adjust the deposited amount of Rs.9,55,875/- lying deposited with the OPs against Booth No.37 Sector 53, Mohali. The OPs have adjusted the said amount on 15.07.2014 against booth No.212 Sector 64, Mohali and still after giving the adjustment found the complainant deficient in deposit of Rs.4,31,625/- in order to meet out 25% of the bid price of Rs.59,50,000/-. Therefore, the OPs vide Ex.C-21 have issued a detailed order vide which they have forfeited Rs.1.00 lac deposited by the complainant alongwith the bid application for the booth No.212, Sector 64 and refunded Rs.9,55,875/- vide order dated 16.12.2014. The complainant has accepted the said refund but, however, has raised the issue of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on account of refund of deposited amount of Rs.9,55,875/- without interest w.e.f. 16.04.2012 till 14.12.2014 i.e. the date of actual deposit till payment by the OPs and further forfeiture of Rs.1.00 lac besides claiming other reliefs.

7.             The limited issue now for consideration before us is whether the OPs have rightly forfeited Rs.1.00 lac and rightly refunded Rs.9,55,875/- without interest to the complainant. So far forfeiture of Rs.1.00 lac is concerned, to determine this issue it will be appropriate to again refer to terms of brochure Ex.C-11 governing the bid for site No.212 Sector 64. It is admitted that the complainant was successful bidder for booth site No.212 Sector 64 and as per terms of brochure Ex.C-11, the complainant was to deposit 25% of the quoted price for the booth site within 30 days from the date of publication of result i.e. 24.12.2013. It is admitted that the complainant being the successful bidder has quoted the bid price of Rs.59,50,000/- against the booth No.212 Sector 64 and the 25% of the said amount comes to Rs.14,87,500/- which was to be deposited by the complainant by 02.03.2014 as detailed in Ex.C-21. The complainant has made a request vide letter dated 03.02.2014 Ex.C-12 duly acknowledged by the OPs followed by reminder dated 17.02.2014 Ex.C-13 duly acknowledged by the OPs wherein the complainant has made request to the OPs to adjust the amount of Rs.9,55,875/- already lying with the OPs against the booth No.37, Sector 53, Mohali which has been now cancelled by the OPs. It was an obligation on the OPs to adjust the said amount of Rs.9,55,875/- lying with them to adjust within the stipulated cut off date of 02.03.2014 against the 25%  deposit for the newly allotted booth No.212 Sector 64. We have gone through Ex.C-21 i.e. letter dated 16.12.2014 issued by the OPs which clearly reveals that the benefit of adjustment of said amount of Rs.9,55,875/- has been granted to the complainant by the OPs on 15.07.2014.

 8.               It was an obligatory on the part of the complainant to make the 25% of the bid amount by stipulated date of 02.03.2014. The complainant has failed to show the payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,31,625/- by the stipulated period as Rs. 9,55,875/- was already lying paid with the OPs. Even if it is believed that his request dated 03.02.2014 for adjustment of said amount has been conceded or otherwise by the OPs. The onus to make the payment of 25% of the bid amount by stipulated  period was on the complainant and the complainant has failed to discharge the same as there is no document on record to show the same. Therefore, the OPs are well within their rights to invoke clause 19 of the brochure and has rightly invoked the same while passing orders dated 16.12.2014 Ex C-21 vide which Rs. 1 lac has been forfeited .  We do not find anything amiss on the part of the OPs in this regard.

9.             The next question is whether the OPs are well within their right to refund the amount of Rs.9,55,875/- without any interest . It is admitted that the said amount remained with the OPs since 16.04.2012 when it was initially deposited with the Ops against booth No.37 Sector 53, Mohali and it is further admitted that the said amount has been refunded to  the complainant by the OPs vide order dated 16.12.2014 Ex.C-21. Thus it is ample clear that the said amount of Rs. 9,55,875/- remained with the OPs from 16.04.2012 till 16.12.2014 and now the refund has been made without interest. In this regard we have again perused Ex C-21 and found that the OPs have passed reasoned order while dealing with multiple booth allotment to the complainant as an auction purchaser. The complainant has earlier for Sector 53 Scheme given bid for two booths i.e. booth No. 34 ground floor  and booth No. 37 first floor and now booth No. 212, Sector 64, Mohali. In all the three bids for these booths, the complainant was successful and has been allowed undisputedly booth site No. 34, Sector 53. So far booth site No.37 is concerned due to some technical reasons the OPs themselves have taken a U-Turn and not issued the allotment letter and instead continue to offer him alternative site which the complainant did not accept and then the same earnest money of Rs. 9,55,875/-  lying against booth No.37 Sector 53 was requested by the complainant to be adjusted against the bid money for booth No.212, Sector 64. Since the complainant himself has failed to pay the 25% bid money by stipulated period, the OPs are well within their rights to invoke clause 19 of the brochure Ex C-11 and forfeit the application  money and   refund the deposited amount without interest to the complainant. The amount deposited by the complainant did not earn any interest to the OPs as the same has been used by the OPs for adjustment against another scheme as per the instructions of the complainant. Therefore, the refund of the amount without interest by the OPs in no manner can be termed as an act of deficiency of service on their part.

 10.          Thus on the basis of pleadings and appreciation of evidence on record by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case on both these counts i.e. forfeiture of Rs. 1 lacs and refund of amount of Rs. 9,55,875/- without interest. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed

11.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.     

November 30, 2015.                                              (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                     President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                        Member