NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2986/2009

URBAN IMPROVENMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIRENDRA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR.DHARMENDRA AGARWAL

22 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 11 Aug 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2986/2009
(Against the Order dated 05/05/2009 in Appeal No. 2265/2004 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. URBAN IMPROVENMENT TRUST, BHARATPURThrough Its Chairmana Uraban improvenment Trust . Bharatpur . In Front. Of Swagat Bhawan. Agra Road. Bharatput Rajasthan 321001 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. VIRENDRA SINGHS/o. Shri. Son of Shri Charna Singh R/o. 151. Krishana Nagar. Bharatpur ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

          Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent in person.
          Factual backgrounds are that in public auction, respondent was allotted a commercial plot, which was corner plot bearing No.24, pursuant to which he deposited Rs,24,000/- with petitioner. However, subsequently allotment of plot made to respondent was withdrawn by petitioner on premises of that already having been sold to one Mr. Gaurav Goel. Though petitioner remitted a cheque of Rs.24,000/- to respondent, aggrieved respondent brought consumer complaint with District Forum, which regard being had to the facts of case, found deficiency on part of petitioner-authority. A committee of petitioner-authority also passed a resolution to the effect that in given circumstances respondent be allotted alternate plot. District Forum, on consideration of these features while accepting claim of respondent directed petitioner to allot alternative plot to him and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- along with cost of Rs.500/-. Appeal too preferred by petitioner did not get desired result and it is how that petitioner is in revision. 

Though action of petitioner-authority in allotment of plot in auction despite that having been sold to Mr. Gaurav Goel does not sound well, way back in case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. R. Sivasubramaniayam, III, (1998) CPJ 39 (NC) wherein issue of allotment of plot in public auction was involved, four Member Bench of National Commission held that complainant was not a consumer to maintain consumer complaint before Consumer Fora. That apart, in other land mark judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Chandigarh Administration & anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) has also taken a similar view and held that person securing allotment in an auction was not a consumer. In view of ratio of these decisions, complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed. However, petitioner-authority shall remit deposit made by respondent within a period of two months. It is however open to respondent to seek relief before appropriate forum. 



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER