AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P (for short "State Commission") whereby, the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Agra (for short "District Forum") was modified .
Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that in August, 1994, the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad OP had published in the 'Amar Ujala' newspaper about the auction sale of some houses. In the auction, the Complainant made his bid for House No. A- 265 for Rs. 2,33,000/-. The Complainant had paid 10 % amount of the bid. It was assured that the allotment letter would be issued and possession of the LIG house would be given. The Complainant alleged that the OP did not allot the house nor gave possession inspite of various requests. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum.
The complaint was resisted by the OP by way of the written statement. It was asserted that the auction was conducted to sell the houses but the OP never assured to allot the houses. The Complainant's participation was admitted but vide letter dated 16.05.1997, the Complainant's bid was cancelled by the Parishad and the refund without interest was allowed. Hence, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The District Forum, vide order dated 18.11.2000, directed the OP to give possession of House No. A- 265 , Phase No. 1, Agra to Complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental torture .
Being aggrieved, the OP filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 08.01.2016 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum. The order to handover possession of the house was set- aside. Rest of the order of the District Forum remained same.
Being dissatisfied by the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the State Commission, the Complainant preferred the present Revision Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner at admission stage, perused the record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments. Admittedly the complainant's bid was cancelled. The possession was given to another person after cancellation of the bid of the Complainant. The complainant was informed about the cancellation also. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
This view dovetails from the decision in the case Delhi Development Authority v. Parveen Kumar & Ors. II (2015) CPJ 36 (NC, it was observed :
As far as the person, who obtains for allotment of a built up flat/developed plot is concerned if the statutory authority does not undertake an obligation to carry out any further development activity such as providing or augmenting infrastructure or is not required to render any other service in connection with such allotment, he will not be a consumer within the meaning of the Act. If however, the sale/allotment of builtup flats/developed plots is accompanied by such an obligation on the part of the concerned development authority, the purchaser would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
As far as a person who applies for allotment of a plot/flat is concerned, he will not be a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, if neither any allotment is made to him nor he is registered for and awaiting such an allotment. Such a person cannot be said to have hired or availed the services of the concerned development authority in connection with housing. Mere submission of an application for allotment, which does not result either in allotment or registration and consequent inclusion in the awaiting list for such an allotment, does not confer upon him the status of a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act.
I find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is affirmed.
The revision petition stands dismissed.