Punjab

StateCommission

CC/188/2014

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh Raj

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 2014

 

                                                                      Date of institution:  3.11.2014

                             Date of Decision:     2.2.2015      

 

1. Naresh Kumar son of Shri Deendayal
2. Smt. Shashi Prabha wife of Sh. Naresh Kumar

Both residents of # 145, Golden Avenue, Phase I, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

…..Complainants

 

                                      Versus

 

1. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali.
2. Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar.

…..Opposite Parties

 

Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the complainants       :         Sh. Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The complainants have filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the opposite parties (in short ‘the Ops’) on the allegations that the complainants purchased a commercial site SCO No. 4, Old Punjab Roadways Workshop, Jalandhar measuring 101.15 Sq. Mtr. in an open auction on 4.4.2012 and they were allotted the said plot for a sum of Rs. 96,59,825/-. Complainant No. 1 retired from the service of the Punjab Government as ETO and wanted to set up the business for his self employment after retirement and so far has made a payment of Rs. 92,60,200/-. At the time of auction, complainants were informed by the Ops that the Old Punjab Roadways Workshop, which was part of the site auctioned has been shifted and in a meeting held between the Chief Minister of Punjab, Member, Technical, PSEB and the Chief Administrator, PUDA, it was decided that old Power Grid Station in front of the site auctioned shall be dismantled within a period of two months. The complainants applied for sanction of the building plan to the Jalandhar Development Authority on 2.7.2012. OP No. 1 sanctioned the building plan vide letter dated 30.8.2012. However, the old Power Grid Station was still there and there was no visibility of the site from the old GT Road to make the site commercial after four months of auction. Complainant No. 1 had been visiting the office of the Ops to dismantle the Power Grid Station so that he may start the construction. Then he wrote a letter dated 8.3.2013 in response to his complaint dated 14.2.2013 that OP No. 2 had taken up the matter with Deputy Chief Engineer, Powercom, Ludhiana and the Grid Station shall be shifted very soon. On account of non-shifting of the Grid Station, the complainants have not been able to utilize their property. Whereas the Ops had received a sum of Rs. 7,22,666/- from the complainants on account of interest on delayed payment of instalments. The Grid Station is being removed now but even now the site is not visible to make it a commercial site, therefore, they are entitled to charge interest on a sum of Rs. 92,60,200/- from the Ops, which came to Rs. 18,49,432/-. The Ops are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. The complaint has been filed directing for refund of Rs. 7,22,666/- and  also  to  pay  interest  of Rs. 18,49,432/- on the amount of Rs. 92 lacs received from the complainants by the Ops.

2.                At the time of admission, the first question came before us was whether the complainants comes within the definition of the ‘consumer’. In case we go through the complaint, in the opening lines of his complaint, it has been mentioned that the complainants purchased from the Ops a commercial site and further it has been mentioned in para No. 1 to set-up a business for his self employment. It was further alleged in para No. 4 of the complaint that the Grid Station was not removed to make the site commercial even after four months of the auction. Again in para No. 8, it has been mentioned that although Grid Station is being removed but the site is not visible to make it a commercial site, therefore, in case the complainants had purchased a commercial site and in case there is any problem with regard to the said property then it is to be seen whether he comes within the definition of the ‘consumer’, for that Section 2(1)(d)(i) is relevant, which reads as under:-

“(d)    "consumer" means any person who —

(i)      buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;”

However, the complaint does not speak that this property was purchased by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Rather repeatedly it has been mentioned that it is a commercial site, purchased to set-up a business.

3.                Then an attempt was made to move an application for amendment of the complaint and in the amended complaint, it was again mentioned that the complainants purchased from the Ops a commercial site and again amended complaint did not make a reference that the property was purchased for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment and then he moved another application No. 2549 of 2014 for clarification that he wanted to set-up a business for self employment after his retirement at the site in question. Again wording used in the definition of the ‘consumer’ as referred above was not mentioned by the counsel for the complainant in the complaint. In these circumstances, the counsel for the complainants was unable to explain how he comes under the definition of ‘consumer’. He has referred to the judgment of the U.T. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh reported as 2006(1) JRC 165 “Mandeep Kang versus Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another” in which it was observed that the respondents did not prove that the appellant had purchased the property for commercial purpose. In that case the property was purchased in the public auction on 29.8.2011 whereas explanation to Section 2(1)(d)(i) was substituted w.e.f. 15.3.2003, certainly, after the purchase of this property. Moreover, there is judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2013) CPJ 496 (NC) “Supenath Ramji Patil versus Surendrakumar Maghraj Sethi”. In that case, transaction between the business of selling plots. They failed to explain status of those plots. Those plots were not purchased exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. It was stated that transaction related to commercial purpose and the complainant was not ‘consumer’. Therefore, in our opinion the complainants do not fall within the definition of the ‘consumer’.

4.                Then he has asked for a refund of Rs. 7,22,666/- from the complainants on account of interest on delayed payments. The payment schedule was given in the allotment letter dated 22.5.2012. It was further directed that in case the balance payment of Rs. 72,43,325/- is paid in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of allotment letter or in 4 equated yearly instalments alongwith interest @ 12% and then rate of penalty has been imposed with regard to the delayed period. If the delay is upto one year 3%, upto two years 4% and upto 3 years it was 5%. In case the complainants have made the payment with the delay then the interest has been calculated according to the conditions given in the allotment letter.

5.                Then in para No. 8, it has been mentioned that Power Grid Station is removed even though the site is not visible, therefore, he is entitled to interest of Rs. 18,49,432/- on a sum of Rs. 92,60,200/- paid by him. No doubt that there is correspondence between the authorities with regard to shifting of the Power Grid but no time frame was given. The matter was to be taken with the Powercom and after their approval only it was to be shifted. Therefore, even on merits, the complainants were not able to make out the case for the refund of this amount.

6.                In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainants do not come within the definition of the ‘consumer’ and has also not been make out a case for admission of the complaint as referred above, therefore, the complaint is dismissed in limine.

7.                The arguments in this consumer complaint were heard on 29.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

February 2, 2015.                                                       (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                Member