The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that the complainant is the permanent resident of the above said address and is the buyer/allottee of General Shop No. 27 of the opposite party. The complainant bought this shop to earn his livelihood, as such the complainant is the 'consumer' of the opposite party. It is further averred that on 13.05.2015, the complainant deposited Rs.3,88,750/- as earnest money to participate in the auction of the shops and the opposite party issued a receipt No.16806 dated 14.05.2015 for the same. The auction was held at Gurdaspur. The complainant gave bid for the General Shop No. 27, in which his bid was accepted by the opposite party. Vide letter No. General Shop 27/Gdp/6269 dated 08.06.2015, the allotment of Shop No. G-Shop 27 was sanctioned/approved by the Director on 30.05.2015 in favour of the complainant. In this letter, the terms and conditions of the payment were also mentioned, which was received by the complainant. As per para No. 5 of the letter dated 08.06.2015, the earnest money of Rs.3,88,750/- i.e. 25% of the auction amount, deposited by the complainant was adjusted in the total sale price i.e. Rs. 15 Lakhs of the Shop No. 27. As per para No. 6 of the letter dated 08.06.2015, it was intimated that the bidder/allottee can deposit the balance sale consideration of 75% i.e. Rs.11,11,250/- within 30 days without interest with the opposite party or can deposit the balance sale consideration in 3 yearly or 6 monthly installments along with interest @ 12%. But, first installment is to be deposited within one year or six months from the date of sanction i.e. 08.06.2015. The complainant again received a letter No. G.Shop 27/Gdp/6483 dated 12.06.2015 giving the details of payment to be made of the auction amount/sale price as per the table i.e. in 6 (six) monthly installments with 12% interest. On receiving the above mentioned letter, the complainant approached the opposite party on 03.07.2015 and deposited Rs.6,11,250/- vide draft Nos. 786657 and 786659 dated 03.07.2015 and the opposite party issued acknowledgment receipt with Memo No. GS-27/Gurdaspur/8064 dated 17.07.2015 and as such, made the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- in total. It is further averred that as per the letter dated 12.06.2015, the complainant was to make payment of Rs. 1,85,210/- as First installment of the total amount due i.e. Rs. 11,11,250/- along with interest of Rs. 66,678/- on the total balance sale consideration of the shop upto 08.12. 2015, but the complainant deposited Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 66,678/- as interest on the total balance sale consideration vide bank Draft No. HV/D 786713 dated 03.12.2015 amounting to Rs. 5,66,680/- drawn from Dena Bank, Gurdaspur with the opposite party and dispatched the same through Speed Post on 03.12.2015 on the above address of the opposite party given in the head note. As such, nothing is due out of the total sale consideration against Shop No. 27 to the complainant. The opposite party has not issued NOC nor has come present in the office of the Registrar to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant after receiving the full payment of the shop. Now, when the complainant approached the opposite party to issue the NOC and to register the sale deed in his favour, the opposite party is raising an illegal demand of Rs.1,68,000/- from the complainant for the reasons best known to the opposite party. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 31.05.2018 through his counsel dispatched on 01.06.2018 for issuing the NOC and also to register the sale deed of Shop No. G-Shop 27, but the opposite party has not given any heed to the notice which is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the opposite party be directed to withdraw their illegal demand of Rs.1,68,000/- and issue NOC and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared through its official and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, under the definition of 'consumer' in view of Section 2 (d), as he had purchased a plot from the opposite party by way of open “public auction” on 13.05.2015 and the same was purchased to use it for commercial purpose. The interest shall accrue from the date of issue of the order of allotment, but no interest shall be payable if the balance is paid within a period of thirty days of the date of receipt of the order of allotment by the transferee and further stated that the present complaint is barred in view of Section 19 of the New Mandi Township (D&R) Act, 1960. On merits, it is admitted that the plot owner deposited Rs.6,11,250/-, but the amount was deposited on 7.7.2015 and the plot owner deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- till 7.7.2015 including the 1/4th amount deposited at the time of auction. It is further replied that as per official record of the department-OP, letter of allotment has been shown sent to the complainant on 8.6.2015 vide letter No. 6269 and the Schedule of Payment was also sent on 12.06.2015. As per conditions of sale, price of the plot was to be deposited either within 30 days without interest or in six half-yearly installments with 12% simple interest. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to evade the due amount. Complainant will be issued 'No Due Certificate' once the due amount, along with interest and penalty is received by the opposite party-department. The answering department did not issue the 'No Due Certificate' because of reasons mentioned above. The amount of Rs.1,66,693/- on late payment is still due against the complainant. The legal notice received is under consideration of the OP-department. The remaining averments made in the complaint are denied.
3. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply, whereby reiterated the averments made in the complaint and denied those of the written reply.
4. Both the parties produced the relevant documents in respect of their respective pleadings.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file along with written arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite party very minutely.
6. Before going into the merits of the case, we have to discuss whether the complainant is a 'consumer' of the opposite party under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As referred by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case (supra) that in case of auction, there was no hiring or availing of service by the person bidding at the auction. It has been stated in the said order as follows:-
“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”
7. In this regard, we also place reliance on an order dated 10.11.2017 passed by our own Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 332 of 2016 titled as “Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, Chandigarh & Another v/s Deepak Sharma and another” which is produced on record alongwith written arguments by Ops.
8. Keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above and the order of Hon’ble State Commission, accordingly, we hold that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of the opposite party and as such, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed, with no order as to costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
August 06, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
