Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President &
Mr. Sada Nand, Member
C.C. FOOTWEAR—Appellant
versus
PUNJAB SMALL SCALE & EXPORT CORPN. LTD.—Respondent
Complaint Case No. 19 of 1996—Decided on 28.7.1997
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Ms. Manjit Chawla, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate.
A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is barred by limitation if it is filed more than two years after the cause of action arose.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - ALLOTMENT OF PLOT - WITHDRAWAL OF OFFER - REFUND OF DEPOSIT - INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS - APPLICABILITY OF CONCESSIONS - LIMITATION - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT: - Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines 'consumer' as a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person from whom he derives title to the goods or services. - The court interpreted the terms and conditions of the provisional offer of allotment and held that the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions by not making 30% payment of the premium within the stipulated period. - The court also considered the advertisement issued by the respondent offering concessions to defaulter allottees and held that the benefit of this advertisement was not available to the complainant as the plot in question had been allotted to some other party after having been cancelled. - The court held that the complaint was barred by limitation and dismissed the same.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant applied for allotment of a plot in a Leather Complex to be developed by the respondent. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 46,000/- being 10% of the total value of the plot. The respondent later withdrew the offer of allotment and forfeited the amount deposited by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking possession of the plot and refund of the amount deposited.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also held that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the benefit of the concessions offered by the respondent in its advertisement was not available to the complainant as the plot in question had been allotted to some other party.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to the benefit of the concessions offered by the respondent in its advertisement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had not hired or availed of any services from the respondent. 2. The court held that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed more than two years after the cause of action arose. 3. The court held that the complainant was not entitled to the benefit of the concessions offered by the respondent in its advertisement as the plot in question had been allotted to some other party.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint.
Mr. Sada Nand, Member—The complainant M/s. C.C. Footwear, New Delhi, applied for allotment of a plot in the Leather Complex at Jalandhar to be developed by M/s. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd, now known as Punjab Small Scale & Export Corporation Ltd. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 25th May, 1987 with the respondent and another sum of Rs. 46,000/- being 10% of the total value of the plot was deposited on 11.8.1987 vide receipt Annexure 'D'. Thereafter the respondent vide their letter dated 20.6.1989 wrote to the complainant to remit a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- being 30% of the tentative price of the plot within 30 days from the issue of the letter. However, the complainant on 19.7.1989 replied to the respondent that he would like to draw his attention that neither allotment letter nor any progress report for the development of the land for setting up of Central Effluent Treatment and Disposal System was made available to him though it was one of the conditions that the plot will be ready in all respects within two years of deposit of the first instalment. The complainant informed the respondent that he had personally visited the complex on 19.12.1989 and could not see anything except bare land and few small rooms with various obstructions on the way without sewerage and without laying line of effluent treatment plant. Further, it was the respondent who vide letter dated 28.7.1990 wrote to the complainant that they have withdrawn the offer of allotment of plot No. 389 in the Leather Complex, Jalandhar and that as per condition No. 3 of the allotment letter the amount stands forfeited. The complainant on 30.8.1990 wrote to the respondent that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 46,000/- had already been deposited by the complainant with the respondent and that even after expiry of more than 3 years respondent had not provided the infrastructural facilities. The complainant further contended that the respondent had no right to ask for further payment till facility had been provided for. The complainant alleges that he had been physically visiting the respondent at Chandigarh but the respondent had not given any response. On an enquiry by the complainant, he came to know that the respondent vide their letter dated 5th May, 1995 had informed the complainant that his plot has already been cancelled vide their letter dated 28.7.1990. The complainant in his complaint prayed that the respondent be directed to give possession of Plot No. 389 to the complainant on payment of balance price of the plot as complainant has now noted that all the infrastructure has been built by the respondent partially and he can start the construction of its industrial shed at the premises allotted by the respondent.
2. The respondent has contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the plot in question has been allotted to some other entrepreneur under "Off the Shelf Scheme"; that the present complaint is barred by limitation; that the provisional offer of allotment of the complainant has been cancelled/withdrawn on 28.7.1990 and this factor was fully within the knowledge of the complainant and that the letter dated 25.5.1995 is nothing but intimation of the letter dated 28.7.1990 and this does not give any fresh cause of action to the complainant. The complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the provisional offer of allotment by not making 30% payment of the premium within the stipulated period despite the opportunity granted by the respondent. The provisional offer of allotment was cancelled/withdrawn as per terms of the allotment letter and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on these very grounds.
3. According to the respondent the allotment was cancelled as far back as 28th July, 1990 and letter dated 25th May, 1995 which is nothing but intimation of the said letter, cannot give ri
