BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.236 of 2017

      Date of Instt. 18.07.2017

      Date of Decision: 16.12.2019

1.       Sarbjeet Singh S/o Shri Avtar Singh

2.       Avtar Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh

Both residents of 128, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) through its Chief Administrator/Executive Officer, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

2.       Jalandhar Development Authority, Jalandhar through its Authorized Representative/Chairman.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Navjot Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. A. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that the complainants         have been allotted one commercial site bearing Booth No.19, measuring about 18.96 Sq. Meter at Crystal Plaza, Chhotti Baradari, Part-II, Jalandhar on free hold basis, vide Memo No.EO-PUDA-JAL-A3-2014/645 dated 30.05.2014. The complainant is a consumer, who has purchased and got the allotment of above said commercial site and the OP has sold/auctioned the plot for consideration, hence the activities and the sale of the commercial site by the OPs are covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1988. The OPs are making development schemes and selling the site to public at large on payment. The complainant has already paid Rs.6,37,735/- as per receipts attached.

2.                The complainants have invested in the above said plot for the purpose to do business for themselves. The said commercial site has been purchased by the complainants for self employment purpose and to earn their livelihood. The complainants who are father and son in relation, intend to start some business in the said commercial site for the purpose to earn their livelihood and hence the complainants are consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the OPs are liable for any negligent and deficient services and unfair trade practice to the complainants. It is the duty of the OPs to give proper passage to the site as per lay out plan and it is further important to mention here that all the services mentioned in the terms and conditions and the rights for easement should be given to the purchaser. It is the duty of the OPs that no inconvenience or blockage of any passage should take place for the site auctioned by the OP. It is further pertinent to mention here that the people of the resident’s colony have constructed one park and has got tiles flooring affixed and due to that fixation of tiles, the passage to the booth in question is totally closed. No vehicle can enter the said booth. There is no entry of vehicle to the concerned booth, hence no proper business for earning the livelihood can be made. Due to this reason, there is no proper passage/entrance has been provided to the booth of the complainants and there is no way for the entry and exist of the vehicles to the booth of the complainants. If there is no vehicle entry and exist for the booth, which has been purchased for earning the livelihood. Without proper passage it is not possible for the complainants to start any business for their livelihood and they have suffered great loss, pain and agony due to no passage to the site. The act and conduct of the OPs is tantamount to deficiency in service and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to provide the proper passage and approach to the site of the complainant or in the alternative to refund the amount paid by the complainant amounting to Rs.6,37,735/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further, OPs be directed to pay compensation for mental torture and harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and be also directed to pay  legal proceedings charges i.e. Rs.20,000/-.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost and further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and even the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and thus, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service in part of the OPs and even the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. On merits, it is admitted that the plot in question has been auctioned to the complainant, but further submitted that the complainant has purchased the site in question in open auction after the inspection of the property site and as per law auction purchaser does not come under the definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Replication not filed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and then evidence of the complainant was closed by order on 27.11.2018.

6.                Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.O-1 along with some documents Ex.O-2 and Ex.O-3 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8.                It will be appropriate if we firstly consider the legal aspect raised by the OPs in Para No.2 On Merits that the property in question has been purchased by the complainant in open auction after inspecting the property site and as per law, auction purchaser does not come under the definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act. This question firstly raised by the counsel for the OPs at the time of filing written reply and accordingly, he again argued and gave much stress upon this aspect. So, we find it fit to firstly decide this matter whether the complainant is consumer or not, for that purpose, we have gone through the case file and find that the property in question has been virtually purchased by the complainant on auction as per Auction Letter Ex.C-1, if so, then the law is very settled, if any property is purchased on open auction, it means “as it where is basis” and in support of this observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, cited in First Appeal No.483 of 2014, titled as “Chief Manager Authorized Officer, State Bank of Mysore Vs. G. Mahimaiah” and further made reliance upon an other pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, cited in 2009 AIR SC 1607, titled as “U.T. Chandigarh Administrative & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.”

9.                In view of the above settled law, auction purchaser is not a consumer, if so, then the instant complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own cost. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

16.12.2019                                        Member                          President