HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. USHA VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) USHA Vohra, the respondent was allotted a booth in Sector 10, Panchkula on 15.10.1991 for consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 by petitioner authority. The respondent deposited 15% of the bid amount and claimed to have deposited till 31.12.1996, total consideration money with petitioner authority to the tune of Rs. 8,29,354.50. Though issue about unauthorized construction around the booth in question was also raised by respondent, petitioner, refuting those allegations held that encroachments were since removed. The petitioner however, raised further demand including extension fee, etc. Dissatisfied with inaction of petitioner and also raising further demand, a consumer complaint was filed by respondent, and District Forum on consideration of issues, while upholding cause of respondent directed petitioner authority to recalculate the entire amount, and charge simple interest @ 10% and in case any excess amount was found with petitioner, that was to be refunded to respondent along with 10% interest till date of realization. Aggrieved by the order petitioner preferred an appeal, which did not find favour with State Commission as State Commission too putting reliance on two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Gian Inder Sharma v. HUDA, 2002 (2) PLJ 469, and Ruchika v. HUDA, 2001 (1) PLJ 109, confirmed finding of the District Forum with direction to petitioner not to charge interest more than 10% p.a. Resultantly the appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed with these directions. Now the petitioner authority is in revision before us.

(2.) PRIMARILY two contentions were raised on behalf of petitioner. Contentions are raised that since respondent was allotted a booth which was obviously for commercial consideration, respondent was not a consumer and dispute as such was not to be adjudicated by consumer Fora. The other contention raised, relying on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh and Anr., II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 736. Was that in view of ratio of decision of that case too respondent did not have a valid and legitimate cause to agitate such issues before consumer Fora.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY what was allotted to respondent was a booth site but simply by virtue of respondent having been allotted a booth site no conclusive finding can be recorded about booth having been allotted for commercial consideration and not for earning livelihood as that would require lot of consideration to unsuit the respondent.