Haryana

StateCommission

CC/464/2017

KRISHAN LAL CHHABRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH NARANG

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.464 of 2017

                                                  Date of Institution: 21.08.2017                       Date of Decision: 12.09.2017

 

Sh. Krishan Lal Chhabra S/o Sh.Om Parkash  R/o H.No.298, Sayeed Wada, Old Faridabad, Faridabad.

…..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

1. Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula.
2. Secretary-cum-Executive Officer, Market Committee, Faridabad.

          …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Rajesh Narang, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by complainant that shop/booth No.81 situated in New Vegetable Market, Dabua colony, NI Faridabad was purchased by him from Market Committee- Opposite parties (O.Ps.) in open auction on 24.03.2006.  He deposited 25% of the auction money at the time of purchase of the shop/booth and further deposited all installments, as mentioned in para No.4 of allotment letter.  Due to lack of basic amenities, he stopped paying further installments. Sewerage and other essential facilities were provided in the month of November 2012. He approached O.Ps. office on 10.03.2015 and submitted application regarding waiving off interest, compounding interest, extension fee levied on balance payment.  He also requested the O.Ps. to deliver possession of the shop, but, to no avail.

2.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

3.  The learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that complainant purchased this site for earning his livelihood and his family. So he is covered by definition of consumer and complaint is maintainable.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Perusal of the file shows that commercial shop is purchased in open auction, consumer fora has no having jurisdiction to try complaint because he is not covered by definition of consumer as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 S.C.C. 660.  It was held therein as under:-

 

“…Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amenities are available, he would offer a higher amount. If there are no amenities, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided. 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 to 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.”

8.      More so, as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that complainant has purchased shop/booth, which is a commercial property for business purpose.  It is no-where alleged that he has purchased this property for earning livelihood by way of self-employment.  If anyone has purchased  any property for commercial purpose then it cannot be considered as consumer.   It has no-where alleged that he is not doing any work at this stage.  All these facts clearly shows that site in question is commercial in nature and the complainant did not purchase it for earning their livelihood and self-employment.  When this fact is missing from complaint, it cannot be presumed that this was purchased for earning livelihood by way of self employment as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Pradeep Singh Pahal Vs. TDI infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  1 (2016) CPJ 219. When complainant purchased this shop for commercial purposes, the complaint is not maintainable as per provisions contained in section 2 (i) (d) of the Act. When State Commission is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by Hon’ble  Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and others  (2013) 10 SCC 136 and Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995. When the complainant is not covered by definition of consumer, his complaint is not maintainable. Hence complaint is dismissed in limine.

 

September 12th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.