DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 11 of 04-01-2008<br /> Decided on : 23-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Makhan Lal aged about 36 years S/o Sh. Sat Pal, R/o H. No. 3155, Court Road, Gali No. 1, Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its Managing Director.<br /> 2.Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Depot Bathinda through its General Manager.<br /> .... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to hand over actual vacant possession of shop No. 3 situated adjoining Bus Stand towards Court Road side, Bathinda to him immediately; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, botheration and loss of business. Further relief sought by him is that opposite parties be directed not to re-auction this shop and that he be also allowed any other additional or alternative relief to which he is entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :<br /> 3. Opposite parties are the owners in possession of several shops in the area of Bus Stand, Bathinda which are given by them on licence basis in open auction. On 3.10.07 there was an open auction regarding shop No. 3 adjoining Bus Stand towards Court Road side, Bathinda for giving it on 11 month's licence basis. Complainant was the highest bidder in the auction. Shop was allotted to him. As per terms and conditions a sum of Rs. 27,000/- was deposited by him on 5.10.07 as advance security for six months vide receipt No. 80650. Possession of the shop has not been delivered to him till date despite his personal visits to the officials of opposite party No. 2. His allegation is that he has come to know that opposite parties are out to re-auction the shop to the unsuccessful bidder or to some other persons who are near and dear to them.<br /> 4. Opposite parties filed their reply taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint and complainant is not consumer and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. They admit that open auction was held. Complainant was declared the highest bidder for taking the shop No. 3 on licence. His bid was accepted with the condition that possession would be delivered subject to the approval to the auction by the competent authority. It was mentioned in the auction notice itself that Depot Manager has discretion to reject the highest bid without disclosing any reason. They have acted in consonance with the conditions as auction was rejected by the competent authority i.e. Managing Director of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation after applying his mind as shop in question was given on licence at a lower rate than the rate it had previously fetched. Terms and conditions were conveyed to the public as well as to the complainant orally. They were written in public notice and were also circulated. It is added by them that they are ready to return the amount of Rs. 27,000/- which was deposited by him.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has placed on record his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of receipt dated 5.10.07 (Ex. C-2), another affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-3) and affidavit of Sh. Ram Parkash (Ex. C-4).<br /> 6. In reuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Iqbal Singh, General Manager (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Auction Notice (Ex. R-2) and photocopy of letter dated 22.11.07 (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Factual position does not remain in controversy in this case as parties admit that shop No. 3 was to be auctioned for giving it on licence basis. Complainant being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted. A sum of Rs. 27,000/- was got deposited from him on 5.10.07 as is evident from Ex. C-2. Possession was not delivered to him as auction of the shop was not approved by the competent authority i.e. Managing Director of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as is clear from Ex. R-3.<br /> 9. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that since complainant was the highest bidder for taking shop No. 3 on licence basis and he has deposited Rs. 27,000/-, opposite parties are bound to deliver the possession thereof. They cannot re-allot it to some other person/persons. Neither possession of the shop has been delivered nor amount got deposited by the complainant has been refunded and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that opposite parties have acted in consonance with the terms and condition of the auction conveyed to the public at the time of auction and also in the auction notice, copy of which is Ex. R-2. Auction was subject to approval of competent authority. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 11. We have considered the rival arguments.<br /> 12. Admittedly shop No. 3 was allotted to the complainant in open auction. A sum of Rs. 27,000/- was got deposited from him on 5.10.07. Complainant admits in para No. 7 of the complaint that as per terms and conditions conveyed to the public including him orally at the time of auction, if shop was allotted to a person then final permission would be sought from the competent authority by the opposite parties. A perusal of Ex. R-2 reveals that it was made clear that possession was to be delivered after approval from the competent authority. Hence, there is no room to doubt that delivery of possession of shop was subject to approval by the competent authority. Mere fact that complainant is a highest bidder in the auction is no ground to hold that he is entitled to get the possession of the shop particularly when allotment was subject to approval and approval has not been accorded by the Managing Director of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as conveyed by Controller (Finance and Accounts) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala to the General Manager of P.R.T.C. Bathinda. It is not a case where competent authority did not apply his mind before refusing the approval. Reason has been assigned that licence fee of this commercial shop is less than the previous licence fee for which shop was given on licence. When complainant was fully aware that allotment is subject to approval by the competent authority and approval has not been given, it does not lie in his mouth that possession of the shop be delivered to him and that it be not re-auctioned. Parties are bound by the terms and condition of the auction notice and the terms and conditions which were conveyed to the complainant and to the public at large at the time of auction. Hence there is no deficiency in service on this aspect of the matter on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 13. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 27,000/- has been got deposited from the complainant. Approval to the auction of shop No. 3 was not given by the competent authority. This fact was conveyed to the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Bathinda through letter dated 22.11.07 copy of which is Ex. R-3. When it is so, opposite parties were bound to refund the amount of Rs. 27,000/- got deposited from the complainant alongwith interest particularly when complainant is not at fault and the auction has been cancelled /not approved by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. Opposite parties are using the amount to his detriment. Since the amount has not been refunded alongwith interest, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 14. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant out of the relief claimed in the prayer clause in the complaint. As per our discussion made above, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 27,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 22.11.07 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension, harassment and botheration. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of compensation and interest, one can be allowed.<br /> 15. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Refund Rs. 27,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 27.11.07 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 23-05-2008 <br /> ( Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 'iki' Member President<br /> <br /> <br />