Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/217/2023

RAM BALAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/217/2023
Date of Institution	:	26/04/2023
Date of Decision	:	02/08/2024

 

Ram Balak son of Late Sh. Phool Chand, aged about 72, H.No.92-A Sector 17, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.    Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Phase-II. Urban Estate, Patiala.

2.    Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Opposite Fortis Hospital, Mohali.

3.    Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Additional Chief Administrator, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ram Balak, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that, in the year 2008, through advertisement (Annexure C-1) OPs had allured the general public about allotment of plot by way of auction at Phulkian Enclave, Patiala with specific date of auction to be held on 27.6.2008. The complainant, being interested in purchasing plot for his personal use and occupation, applied and gave highest bid of ₹24,88,800/- for plot No.132 measuring 155.55 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as “subject plot”). On payment of ₹6,22,200/- i.e. 25% of total amount, OPs issued allotment letter dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure C-4) to the complainant.  Complainant deposited total amount of ₹23,45,701/- on different dates, as per the payment plan, vide receipts (Annexure C-5 Colly.). As per clause 4(i) of the allotment letter, OPs had undertaken to hand over possession of the subject plot within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Thereafter, complainant vide letter dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure C-6) requested the OPs to hand over possession of the subject plot and vide letter dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure C-7) OPs had handed over the symbolic possession of subject plot to him.  However, till date, OPs have failed to hand over the physical possession of the subject plot to the complainant despite of the fact that complainant had requested the OPs even vide letter dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure C-8) to hand over physical possession to him.  Later on, complainant came to know that the subject plot, which was allotted to him, is under dispute with Smt.Jagmohan Kaur and, therefore, he sent letters dated 9.8.2016 (Annexure C-13 to C-17) to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, Chief Administrator, Estate Officer, Chief Minster, Punjab and Deputy Chief Minister. In response, vide letter dated 12.8.2016 (Annexure C-18), office of Prime Minister forwarded the complaint of the complainant to the Chief Secretary, Punjab for taking appropriate action in the matter.  Vide letter dated 9.9.2016 (Annexure C-20) OPs intimated the complainant that a contempt petition is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala in which the complainant is also a party.  In response to the said letter, complainant sent letter dated 12.9.2016 (Annexure C-21) to the Estate Officer with the request to delete the name of the complainant in the said petition.  Thereafter, OPs vide letter dated 25.4.2019 (Annexure C-22) intimated the complainant about pendency of RSA No.68 of 2016 titled as Punjab Urban Development Authority Vs. Jagmohan Kaur before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh with regard to the subject plot. However, when the complainant approached the OPs to know about the status of the aforesaid RSA, OPs lingered the matter on one pretext or the other, as a result of which, there is no other option with the complainant except to seek the possession of the subject plot through the instant consumer complaint. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation and cause of action. It is admitted that the subject plot was allotted to the complainant in public auction on 27.6.2008 and the complainant had deposited the amount as per the payment plan.  However, it is alleged that as the subject plot is still under litigation before the Hon'ble High Court, demarcation of the same cannot be carried out on the spot. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject plot was allotted to the complainant in public auction, being the highest bidder and the complainant had deposited the amount of ₹23,45,701/-, as is also evident from the payment receipts (Annexure C-5 colly.) and further that the subject plot is under civil litigation and the matter is pending by way of RSA No.68 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant, being auction purchaser, is a consumer and is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by him in the consumer complaint on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the subject plot was allotted to the complainant by the OPs in public auction and the complainant has already deposited the entire amount with the OPs and, till date, OPs could not deliver the actual possession of the subject plot to the complainant, despite of repeated requests to the OPs, the said act amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is an auction purchaser, since the subject plot was purchased by him in an open auction held by the OPs, this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try the instant consumer complaint as complainant is not a consumer, as has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission in various judgments. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 660, and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

        “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.”

 

4. Learned counsel for OPs has further relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Urban Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Magha Ram, R.P. No.3053 of 2018 decided on 3.8.2023, in which also it was held that in view of the settled law in regard to an auction purchaser not being entitled to be treated as a consumer under the Act, complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Commission/Fora.
5. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Shalini Tripathi Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad through Housing Commissioner & Ors., Law Finder Doc Id # 1618629 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

        “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Dispute on the possession of land - The petitioner states that the plot in question was purchased by the petitioner/complainant in an auction from the UP Awas Evam Vikash Parishad - No facilities were provided for undertaking the construction on the plot - Held, the petitioner/complainant is an auction purchaser and it was her duty to participate in the auction with open eyes and she should have seen the condition of the plot as well as the amenities and facilities - There was no obligation on the part of the respondent to provide any additional facilities in respect of the auctioned plot - The auction was made on 'as is where is basis', and therefore, the petitioner should have assessed the condition of the plot and the amenities and facilities being provided there - There was no promise made in the allotment letter to provide any additional facilities or amenities along with the plot or to develop the same afterwards - It is clear that an auction purchaser is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Complaint rightly dismissed - Hence petition dismissed.”

6. In the instant consumer complaint, admittedly the complainant had purchased the subject plot from the OPs in public auction held on 27.6.2008 for an amount of ₹24,88,800/-, being the highest bidder.  In the light of the ratio of law discussed above, one thing is clear that complainant is an auction purchaser and the auction purchaser is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant consumer complaint and the complainant can seek remedy before the competent civil court.  As we have only discussed about the jurisdiction of this Commission, therefore, we have not touched on the merits of the consumer complaint and the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent civil court for the redressal of his grievance.  The time spent during the proceedings before this Commission shall be excluded under Article 14 of the Limitation Act.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the instant consumer complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/08/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member