Haryana

Karnal

CC/146/2022

Manjit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Estate Officer, HSVP - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Bansal

23 Dec 2022

ORDER

 

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 146 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.22.03.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:23.12.2022

 

Manjeet Kumar son of Ved Parkash, resident of village Manglora, Qadim, Nagla Megha, Karnal, age 41 years, UID no.2178 7451 6394.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Estate Officer, HSVP, Sector-12, Karnal.

2.     The Chief Administrator, HSVP, Plot no.C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Vikas Rana, counsel for the complainant.

                    OPs defence struck off.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as (‘OPs’) on the averments that OPs decided to provide residences to the common public so that they be able to get affordable housing at reasonable price and thus to facilitate common public the OPs put certain properties on sale by way of open auction including plot in question bearing no.2391, sector-32, Urban Estate Karnal. The OPs fixed base price of the property in question @ Rs.1,22,40,400/-. OPs before allowing to participate in the process of purchase, directed the intending purchasers to deposit a sum of Rs.6,12,100/- as EMD fees. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.6,12,100/- to the OPs, vide auction ID no.6536 dated 11.01.2022. The OPs thereafter started the process of selling out the plot by way of open e-auction and the complainant alongwith other participants, participated in the process of purchase of plot by way of bid.  The complainant gave bid of Rs.1,31,40,400/- and thereafter none-else gave bid, thus he declared as highest bidder. Complainant being highest bidder to deposit further sum of Rs.6,57,000/- which was deposited by the complainant, vide auction ID no.6536 dated 17.01.2022. Instead of proceeding further, OPs have intimated the complainant that they have fixed the price of the plot with their own, by saying that the OPs have appointed a committee and committee has fixed the enhanced price of the plot instead of highest bid price. The complainant is ready to deposit the settled price of the plot i.e. highest bid price but  OPs are illegally demanded the enhanced price of plot in excess of the settled sale price. The fixation of enhanced price of plot with their own committee, by the OPs are an illegal act and the same is against their own terms and conditions of e-auction, and the same within the ambit of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence complainant filed the present complaint with the direction to the OPs to allot the plot in question to the complainant at the settled sale price i.e. highest bid price and the OPs be restrained not to demand additional/enhanced amount and further OPs be restrained from re-auction the plot in question and OPs further be restrained from cancellation of allotment of the complaint and to pay Rs.10 lakh as compensation for mental agony and for litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared but did not file its written version after availing several opportunities including three last opportunities, thus the defence of the OPs was struck off, vide order dated 31.05.2022 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of detail of base price of the plot in question Ex.C1, copy of auction details Ex.C2, copy of bidder list Ex.C3, copy of accept/reject counter offer Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 01.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file.

5.             As per version of the complainant, OPs put certain properties on sale by way of open auction including plot in question. The OPs had fixed base price of the plot in question @ Rs.1,22,40,400/-. OPs before allowing to participate in the process of purchase, directed the intending purchasers to deposit a sum of Rs.6,12,100/- as EMD fees. The complainant deposited the said amount to the OPs. The complainant had given bid of Rs.1,31,40,400/- thus he declared as highest bidder and being highest bidder complainant deposited Rs.6,57,000/-. After that OPs intimated the complainant that they have fixed the price of the plot with their own, by saying that the OPs have appointed a committee and committee has fixed the enhanced price of the plot instead of highest bid price. The complainant is ready to deposit the settled price of the plot i.e. highest bid price but OPs are illegally demanding the enhanced price of plot in excess of the settled sale price. The fixation of enhanced price of plot with their own committee by the OPs is an illegal act and the same is against their own terms and conditions of e-auction and prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             It is pertinent to mention here that complainant Nirmal Devi and another complainant Ritu Lather have filed the complaints

 bearing CC no.408 of 2021 and CC no.407 of 2021 respectively on the same cause of action and the same were compromised between the parties on 04.04.2021 and 07.04.2021 respectively and OPs have allotted the plot to the allottees as per auction consideration.

7.             Furthermore, to prove his case complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of detail of base price of the plot in question Ex.C1, copy of auction details Ex.C2, copy of bidder list Ex.C3, copy of accept/reject counter offer Ex.C4. It has been proved on record that the complainant is declared as highest bidder and he has deposited the earnest amount as per terms and conditions of e-auction. But there is no proof on the record that the complainant  has deposited remaining installments as per the terms and conditions of the auction process. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs  had not filed its written version even after availing several opportunities and any other document. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

8.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to allot the plot in question to the complainant if the complainant has fulfilled the terms and conditions of the auction process and deposited the remaining installments within stipulated period to the OPs, otherwise complainant in not entitled for any  relief. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 23.12.2022             

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member                  Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer