Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/534/2022

Jai Gopal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Y.S. Saini

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/534/2022
Date of Institution	:	20.5.2022
Date of Decision	:	19/12/2023

 

 Jai Gopal Sharma S/o Sh. Hans Raj R/o H. No.1869, Phase-V, Sector 59, SAS Nagar, Mohali through his attorney Amandeep Singh Gulati S/o Lt. Gurcharan Singh Gultati, 668, Sector 69, SAS Nagar Mohali.

 

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan-18, Himalya Marg, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. Branch Manager, Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited, Ludhiana
   Depot.
3. Assistant Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Zone-C, Ludhiana.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Jasdeep Kaur, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Amit Tandon, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant gave a bid at the auction held on 26.10.2005 for the purchase of SCO/SCF No.18 measuring 1606” x 66’-0”  at the complex of Govt Hosiery work centre, Industrial Area, near Partap Chowk, Ludhiana on freehold basis for the tentative price of Rs.44,00,000/- for earning his livelihood and the same was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 12/19.4.2006. The complainant  had also deposited 25% of the sale price of the said SCO/SCF. It is alleged that despite receiving 25%  of the sale price, the OPs did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter  as no basic development was made as per allotment letter.  It is stated that after order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Hon’ble  High Court the OPs issued a fresh letter dated 9.6.2009 wherein the effective date of allotment was treated as 16.4.2008 instead of 19.4.2006 for all intents and purpose. It is alleged that however, no development was made by the OPs and with a malafide intention  mentioned the site as SCO/SCF without any clarification with regard to the same despite repeated requests made by the complainant to  clarify the nature of site. On asking of the OPs the complainant deposited Rs.38,801/- on 9.5.2016 with the Ops for getting the map of the said site  passed. However, the Assistant  Town Planner Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana wrote a letter dated 2.12.2016 to the complainant that the OP No.2 wrote letters several times to the OP No.1 for the clarification of the said site whether  it is SCO or SCF but no response has been received thus without clarification of the said site the  map cannot be passed. It is alleged that OPs illegally held the hard earned money of Rs.49.5. lakh which is more than the actual amount and map fee of Rs.38,801/- but did not clarify the nature of the site. However, the Ops all of sudden on 10.5.2022 issued a letter to the complainant asking the complainant to deposit outstanding amount of Rs.56,80,445/-  while  imposing the illegal penalties. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant participated in the biding and was declared successful in  respect of two plots being highest bidder and as per allotment letter dated 12/19.4.2006 10% of the auction bid amount was to be deposited immediately after auction and another 15% was required to be deposited within 30 days from the date of auction.  The remaining 75% cost was payable either in lump sum within 60 days of the allotment without any interest  or equated half yearly installments with interest @11%. but the complainant did not comply with  the terms and conditions of allotment as the first installment was due on 11.10.2006 but in spite of repeated requests the complainant did not deposit the installment and started making excuses. It is averred that the auction was as is where basis and complainant participated in bidding knowing fully well about the terms and conditions. It is averred that all development work at the site was done and the purchasers were required to construct SCO or SCF as per their choice and start working there. It is averred that the allottees have filed civil writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court as a result of which the matter was placed before the BOD of OP corporation and a revised schedule of payment was issued on 9.6.2009. However, the complainant still failed to deposit the outstanding amount despite numerous notices sent by the answering OPs. Thus, the complainant is himself a defaulter in making payment and there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OPs. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant has applied for sanction of building plan vide application dated 156-C dated 11.2.2016 with  OP No.3  and as the complainant failed to give the NOC to the OP No.3  and the Ops No.1&2 failed to provide the clarification qua the site, whether it is SCO or SCF, as such the application filed by the complainant was declined  by OP No.3. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.3.  
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The prayer of the complainant through the present complaint is that the OPs No.1&2 be directed to disclose whether the property in question is SCO or SCF and further prayed to pass directions to the OPs No.1&2 to withdraw the letter dated 10.5.2022 declaring it as null and void  ab initio and further prayed for compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss  due to adamant attitude of the OPs No.1&2.
8. The stand taken by Ops No.1&2 is that it is the complainant who  is defaulter in making payment towards the property in question despite receiving various reminders which were sent to the complainant vide Exhibits OP-2 to OP-20  since 2006 till 2022 with the request to deposit the outstanding amount alongwith extension fees.As of now as per OP No.1&2 an outstanding amount of Rs.56,80,445/- has yet not been paid by the complainant till date. Even after more than 16 years of the allotment of the subject site, the complainant has failed to deposit full payment.  As per terms and conditions of allotment full amount was to be deposited within 60 days of the allotment or in five half yearly installments i.e. 2.5 years in case of installment with interest. Even revised plan dated 16.10.2010  was not adhered to by the complainant and he is persistent defaulter.
9. The stand taken by OP No.3 is that for the purpose of passing of the building plan the complainant had to obtain No Objection Certificate from OPs No.1&2 but the complainant failed to do so and as such there is no fault on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
10. After going through the documents on record it is abundantly clear that as per Annexure VI annexed at page 47 of the paper book  the complainant had to submit NOC obtained from OPs No.1&2 in time bound manner but  admittedly the complainant failed to do so. Even the complainant failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court and did not pay the due amount in time bound manner and failed to honour its own obligations. The property in question was purchased  by the complainant in the bidding process of Ops No.1&2. Annexure C-1 is the allotment letter dated 12/19.4.2006  according to which the remaining amount of 75%  of the cost  of the site in question was  payable by the complainant either in lump sum within 60 days of the allotment without any interest in 5 equated half yearly installments  with 11% interest but the complainant failed to adhere to the same and as such became defaulter.  Even the order of the Hon’ble High Court was not complied with by the complainant.
11. Even otherwise, the complainant is not a consumer and in this regard the OPs No.1&2 have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as U.T. Chandigarh Administration & anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors decided on 17.3.2009 wherein held as under:-  

“14.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 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.”

 

12.  The  principle of law laid dawn by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore-extracted case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this, case.  
13.  In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled law in regard to an auction purchaser not being entitled to be treated as a ‘consumer’ under the Act, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member