Dy. Housing Commissioner, RHB & 2 Ors vs Kamlesh Limani

V.K. Jain, J

The complainants/respondents participated in an auction held by the petitioner for allotment of Kiosks in Chopasani Scheme on 19.6.2009. They deposited 5% of the bid amount with the petitioner. The bid given by them was higher than the price, which the petitioners had fixed for the said Kiosks. However, the cheque whereby the payment was made by the complainants was returned to them by the petitioners, after four months, without assigning any reason. The petitioners obtained information under Right to Information Act which revealed that the bid had not been accepted on the ground that the bidders were from the same family. According to the complainants, no such condition had been incorporated in the terms and conditions on which the auction was held. The complainants, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate consumer complaints.

The petitioners did not file their reply within the prescribed time and, therefore, their right to file reply/written version was closed. Later, an application was submitted by the petitioners for permission to file the evidence but the said application was rejected.

Vide its order dated 28.3.2012, the District Forum allowed the consumer complaints and directed the petitioners to issue the allotment letter in respect of the Kiosks in question to the complainants. It was further directed that in case the said Kiosks has been allotted to some other person, another Kiosks of the same size and at the same rate would be given to them.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission.

It is an admitted position that the bid given by the complainants at the auction was never accepted by the Competent Authority and no allotment of the Kiosks was made to them. In the absence of acceptance of the bid by the Competent Authority and consequent allotment of Kiosks to them, the complainants, in my opinion, cannot be said to be consumers of the petitioners. Unless allotment is made after acceptance of the bid by the Competent Authority, it cannot be said that the bidders had hired or availed the services of the seller/developer. Therefore, the respondents/complainants cannot be said to be consumers of the petitioners. The consumer complaints filed by them were liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Since the consumer complaints are otherwise bound to be dismissed, I need not examine the contention of the petitioners at the time the revision petitions were admitted. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 660], it was contended by the petitioners that the respondents cannot be said to be the consumers and the Kiosks in question was purchased for commercial purpose.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are hereby set aside. The complaints are consequently dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaints shall not come in the way of the complainants/respondents availing such remedy other than a consumer complaint as may be open to them in law. The revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

Later on, Mr. N.K. Chauhan, Counsel for the petitioners has appeared who has been apprised about the order.