Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 394.
Instituted on : 30.10.2014.
Decided on : 30.07.2018.
Saroj Devi w/o Sh. Anand Kumar, Shanker Market, Main Bazar, Charkhi Dadri-127 306(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Secretary cum Executive Officer, Market Committee(HSAMB), Rohtak.
- The Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Mandi Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula(Haryana)
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anand Kumar A.R. for complainant.
Sh.Amandeep alongwith Sh. Pankaj Kauahik, Advocate for
opposite parties.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. The Hon’ble State Commission Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 02.11.2017 has remanded this case for appropriate orders.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had participated in the auction to be conducted by the opposite party on 26.07.13 and had purchased shop No.07-GF against her highest bid of Rs.5500000/- and deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.1375000/- on 27.6.13. Remaining amount was to be paid in six half yearly installments alongwith interest. That the OPs failed to confirm auction, so the complainant requested them to refund the amount. That she received a letter dated 03.03.2014 about the acceptance of her highest bid in respect of alleged shop alongwith a set of 33 conditions pertaining to this confirmation of allotment whereas OP No.2 already approved the bids on 20.08.2013 as also admitted by OP No.1. That complainant wrote letter dated 18.08.14 to the opposite parties to refund her money amounting to Rs.1375000/- with interest but the opposite parties failed to respond the alleged letter. As such, it is prayed that the opposite parries may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1375000/- along with interest amounting to Rs.330000/- besides compensation qua mental harassment etc. and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
3. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the complainant had purchased the shop in question for commercial purposes. That she was not covered by definition of consumer and complaint was not maintainable. She was informed about confirmation of sale within 45 days from date of auction. She never enquired about confirmation of sale. As per section 5A of HSAMB Sale for immovable property Rules 2000(In short “Rules”) amount paid by plot holder could be refunded after deducting 10% of the cost of the plot. Possession was offered to complainant but she failed to take the same. That there is no deficiency in service on their part and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has already tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs have tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R5 and closed their evidence and after remand of case, has made a statement that evidence already filed be read and they do not want to lead any further evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.
6. The main question in this case to be addressed by this Forum is to the effect as to whether the present complainant falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act or not as per orders of Hon’ble State Commission. .
7. This issue was taken up by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in their judgment dated 05.05.2015 and dated 02.11.2017 where it was required by the Hon’ble State Commission that this Forum should address the objection of the OPs as to whether the complainant is consumer or not. So, we confine ourselves only on this issue. Needless to say that the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 05.05.2015 has defined in detail and we quote below para no.11:-
“Against the order of the Hon’ble National Commission, complainant filed civil appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Commission and confirmed the orders of the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission holding that a person who purchased the plot for earning his livelihood is a ‘consumer’ within the definition of Section 2(i)(d) of the Act. In this judgment reference was also made to Madan Kumar Singh Versus District Magistrate & Others, 2009(4) RCR(Civil), 137 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that commercial transaction done for earning livelihood does not exclude in the definition of ‘consumer’. Reference was also made to National Seeds Corporation Limited versus M.Madhusudan Reddy, 2012(1) Recent Apex Judgments, 150 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if any person, who is earning his livelihood by self employment and has entered into a commercial transaction, is a consumer under the definition of ‘consumer’ in the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that in Sanjay Kumar Joshi’s case(supra) reference was also made to U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Another(supra) and Laxmi Engineering Works’(supra) relied upon by the District Forum”.
8. Though the above quote is self explanatory but due to technical reasons the Hon’ble State Commission remanded the case to this Forum to decide the same. In view of the fact that after the above said orders of Hon’ble State Commission, OP failed to place any cogent evidence or material which could prove that the complainant is not a consumer. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M/s Paramount Digital color Lab & Ors Etc. Vs. M/s Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc. decided in civil appeal No.2109-2110 of 2018 decided on 15.02.2018. Hence, we hold that complainant is a consumer. He purchased the said plot for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Moreover, both the parties have given a statement on 24.05.2016 on the basis of which the predecessors of this Forum passed an order of the even date on merits after going through all the records and orders of the respective Forums. So we hold that this complaint deserves acceptance.
9. Hence this complaint succeed and we award the amount of Rs.1375000/-(Rupees thirteen lac seventy five thousand only) after deducting the 10% of the cost of shop(as per letter memo no.54689 dated 04.07.2014) alongwith interest @9% from dated 18.08.2014 till its actual realization in favour of complainant and against the OPs. OPs shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
