RAM KISHAN Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-4-2
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 15,2014

RAM KISHAN Appellant
VERSUS
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

U.T. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANOTHER V/S AMARJEET SINGH & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants).
(2.)IN brief, the facts, as alleged by the complainants, are that they purchased a plot, from the Opposite Parties in open auction for a total consideration of Rs.72,30,000/ -. It was stated that an initial amount of 10% amounting to Rs.7,23,000/ - was paid at the time of bid vide receipt dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure C -2). Further, a sum of Rs.19,00,000/ -, being 25% of the amount, was paid as per the following details: - JUDGEMENT_2_LAWS(UTRCDRC)4_2014.htm
It was further stated that no allotment letter was issued by the Opposite Parties, even after one year of payment of the above amounts, despite numerous visits, and notices by the complainants. In the meantime, the complainants were informed that the reason for non -allotment was that the site so offered i.e. Plot No. 1380, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh was under litigation in various Courts. The Opposite Parties also offered an alternate site, to the complainants. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties allotted Site No. 1470, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh to the complainants, after nearly five years. A letter of allotment was issued on 1.5.2009 and the possession was taken by the complainants on 1.6.2009 (details Annexure C -26 and C -27). It was further stated that, as per the letter of allotment, the complainants were required to deposit the 1st installment upto 10.8.2009. The complainants also made mention of another Complaint No.184 of 2007 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainants finally deposited the 1st installment of Rs.18,07,500/ - against the demand of Rs.21,43,246/ - made by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 10.8.2009, with a request to re -calculate the installments of the balance amount payable in terms of interest being claimed. However, the Opposite Parties declined the request (correspondence C -29 to C -31). It was further stated that, in the meantime, the second installment became due, which was deposited by the complainants, under protest vide letter dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure C -37). It was further stated that thereafter, the complainants were pressing the Opposite Parties by making various representations to re -calculate the amount in terms of the excess interest, being charged by them, but to no effect. It was further stated that during the course of events, complainant No.2 had passed away and the property is now in the name of Complainant No.3. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed.

(3.)IN their joint written statement, the Opposite Parties took up a preliminary objection, that the complainants were not consumers, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Another Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others. It was further stated that Plot No. 1380, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh was sold to one Sh. Daljit Singh in open auction held on 30.10.1981. The said plot was cancelled due to non -payment of dues by him. Sh. Daljit Singh filed a case before the Hon'ble High Court and then before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Directions were issued by the Courts that the plot shall not be allotted to any person without their permission during the pendency of litigation. However, in the meantime, the Opposite Parties had already auctioned the said plot in open auction on 10.12.2003, wherein, the complainants were the successful bidders. It was further stated that another allotment was thus offered to the complainants of Plot No. 1470, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh in lieu of Plot No.1380, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh and the possession was accepted and taken over by them on 1.6.2009. It was further stated that the draft amount of Rs.11,77,000/ - received from the complainants, was not encashed due to the above said litigation and it was encashed only after allotment of the alternative site to them. It was further stated that since the site was allotted in lieu of Plot No. 1380, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh, wherein, the party had submitted 50% amount of the premium after 30 days of the auction dated 13.12.2003, and, as such, they were not entitled to the benefit under Rule 10. It was further stated that the complainants did not submit the documents required under Condition No. 26 of the allotment letter and hence the delay was caused by them. The benefit under Rule 10 for interest was thus not applicable to the Complainants. It was further stated that Condition No. 26 of the allotment letter required surrender of Plot No. 1380, Sector 40 -B, Chandigarh, by the complainants, alongwith surrender of all documents. . It was further stated that as per the issuance of fresh allotment letter dated 17.7.2008, 25% of the premium already paid was adjusted and balance 75% of the premium of the plot, was to be paid, in three equated annual installments. It was further stated that, in case, the installment was not paid in terms of the requirements of the allotment letter interest @20% p.a. was to be charged. The complainants did not pay the installment in time and, as such, Rs.3,75,500/ - was payable. It was further stated that the request of the complainants for re -calculation of installments of the balance amount of 75% was considered, but as they had not fulfilled the formalities, decision was accordingly conveyed on 18.9.2009. It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.