Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1320/2015

Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Mandi Township(Pb) - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rahul Sharma

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                          

                                                Complaint No.  1320

                                                Instituted on:    16.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       28.07.2016

 

Madan Lal son of Late Shri Ram Dass, resident of near Punjab and Sind Bank, Ward No.13, Sunam, District Sangrur, sole Prop. M/s. Jai Bhagwan Pratap Chand at Old Grain Market, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             New Mandi Township, Punjab, SCO No.2437-38. Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab.

2.             State of Punjab, through its Secretary, Agricultural Department (Punjab) Chandigarh.

3.             Naib Tehsildar, New Mandi Township, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Darshan Singh Patwari.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Madan Lal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is running a shop in the name and style of M/s. Jai Bhagwan Pratap Chand at Grain Market Sunam in sale of general trading like gur, shaker, sugar and khal etc. The complainant purchased a plot number 17 in open auction on 11.12.2008 from OP number 1 for A total consideration of Rs.25,50,000/- for opening a new branch of his shop and extension of the business. The complainant paid 1/4^th amount as per rules of the Ops. It is further stated that there is parking space as shown in the site plan and this parking is to be constructed in the shape of road. It is further stated that the OP number 1 cancelled the above said auction without any reason, as such, the complainant challenged the cancellation before the Hon’ble High Court, but the OP number 1 allotment letter to the complainant after a long time, as such, the complainant suffered huge mental tension and also incurred expenses in the high court.  Further grievance of the complainant is that there is a zig zag and non constructed surface and there are big potholes  and it is further stated that it was the duty of the OPs to construct and built parking zone, which is still pending, as such the complainant is unable to start his business.  It is further stated that the complainant constructed the shop well in the prescribed time and paid the balance instalments, but the OPs under the influence of political pressure issued letter number 8406 dated 1.10.2013 on the allegations that the complainant has not constructed the plot and violated the terms and conditions, as such, the OPs issued another letter dated 10.10.2013 and demanded an amount of Rs.10,53,153/- within 30 days, failing which to pay the fine. It is stated further that the complainant deposited this amount of Rs.10,53,153/- vide demand draft number 178841 dated 8.11.2013.  Further grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 issued another memo number 1970 dated 4.3.2014 for Rs.1,80,965/-, which is said to be illegal one. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the memo number 1970 dated 4.3.2014 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the plot in question was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant had filed a civil suit, that the plot in question was purchased in open auction at the site and that the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, the purchase of the plot in public auction is admitted by the OPs, but the auction was cancelled by the Government, which was later on restored by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is stated that as per the condition number 6 of the allotment letter, the complainant was bound to deposit the consideration amount in half yearly six instalments, but the complainant failed to deposit the same and as such, it was found that Rs.1,80,915/- are still outstanding against him. It is stated that the remaining allegations of the complaint have been false and frivolous one and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-7 copy of schedule of instalments, Ex.C-8 copy of acknowledgement receipt, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 copies of memos, Ex.C-12 copy of acknowledgement receipt, Ex.C-13 copy of acknowledgement receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of letter and Ex.OP-2 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant purchased a shop plot on 11.12.2008 in the auction held by OP number 1 for Rs.25,50,000/- for expanding his existing business of General goods like gur, shaker and sugar etc. In the present case, the complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.1,80,965/- raised vide letter number 1970 dated 4.3.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-9. We have perused the copy of the letter Ex.C-9 and found that the demand of Rs.1,80,965/- has been raised after finalising the account of the complainant, as the complainant has miserably failed to deposited the instalments in time.  Further the Ops has also produced on record the statement showing finalisation of the account an amount of Rs.1,80,965/- is due against the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that it is clearly mentioned in the statement that the total sale price of the plot was Rs.25,50,000/- and after deducting the earnest money of Rs.6,69,375/-, the amount recoverable from the complainant on allotment of plot was Rs.18,80,625/-, which amount was payable in six instalments along with interest. But, the complainant failed to pay the same in time as per the schedule given by the Ops, and as such, the amount of Rs.1,80,965/- has been demanded on account of interest and penalty.  As such, we find that the amount has rightly been demanded from the complainant.  

 

6.             Further grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have not constructed the surface and there are big potholes from the above shop upto the main road and the complainant is facing problems in transportation of the goods.  Now, in the present case, the question which arises for determination is whether the Ops are duty bound to construct the roads and pharr etc.  But, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant has purchased the shop in question to expand his existing business, as such, the complainant has purchased the shop for commercial purpose and his complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  To support such a contention, he has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission pronounced in Appeal No.1184 of 2009, decided on 25.4.2013 titled as Administrator, New Mandi Township versus Subash Chand and others, wherein the complainant was held not to be a consumer as the plot in question was purchased in an open auction and the Hon’ble National Commission also cited UT Chandigarh Administration and another versus Amarjeet Singh and others AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1607, wherein it was held that “in a public auction of sites, the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’ and the jurisdiction of the District Forum is barred. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or a consumer dispute and the Fora under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser against the owner holding the auction of site.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant is not a consumer nor his complaint is maintainable before this Forum as held in UT Chandigarh Administration and another versus Amarjeet Singh and others (supra) as the complainant had purchased the shop plot in an open auction for Rs.25,50,000/-.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 28, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member