Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Through Secretary vs HARISH KUMAR

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 25.7.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (Circuit Bench at Bikaner) (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 16 of 2011 - Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Harish Kumar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was affirmed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent participated in auction conducted by the OP/petitioner on 17.12.1997 and purchased a plot for Rs.6,41,618/- and deposited 1/4th amount on the same day. Officer conducting auction made an endorsement on the auction sheet that rest 3/4th amount will be payable only after high tension line passing over the plot is removed. Complainant further submitted that on 29.4.2002, OP passed Resolution to the fact that rest 3/4th amount may be taken from the allottees without any interest and penalty, and intimation to the concerned Engineer of Electricity Department be given for removal of high tension line. Complainant further submitted that in 2007, he came to know that high tension line had been removed. The complainant moved an application to the OP for depositing rest 3/4th amount, but OP asked him to deposit amount along with interest and penalty, whereas OP accepted money from some allottees without interest and penalty. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP gave many reminders to the complainant to deposit 3/4th amount, but he has not deposited, so OP is entitled to claim interest and penalty and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed OP to get deposited 3/4th amount without interest and penalty and to execute lease deed of the plot in favour of the complainant and handover him possession of the plot along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.500/-. Appeal filed by the OP/petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no condition attached with the auction that 3/4th amount will be payable only after removal of high tension line and, as the complainant withheld the money for almost 10 years, petitioner was entitled to receive money along with interest and penalty and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record reveals that at the time of auction, officer conducting auction on behalf of the petitioner/OP mentioned in the auction sheet that 3/4th amount will be payable only after removing of high tension line. This endorsement is binding on OP and OP cannot disown this endorsement. Complainant has also mentioned in the complaint that OP passed Resolution on 29.4.2002 to receive rest of the 3/4th amount without interest and penalty, which further shows that rest of the 3/4th amount was payable without interest and penalty only after removal of high tension line. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that high tension line was removed in the year 2002, but admitted this fact that no intimation was given to the complainant that high tension line has been removed. Petitioner has failed to prove any documentary evidence to the fact that any intimation was given by petitioner to the respondent regarding removal of high tension line passing over the auctioned plot, and in such circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to recover interest and penalty from the complainant/respondent. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing complaint and directing OP to receive 3/4th amount without interest and penalty. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.