Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member
Dr. K.D. Soni and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
HUDA and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.575, 576, 2212, 2673 and 2674 of 2010
Decided on 6.7.2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sandeep Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates with Mr. Satpal, in person
For the Respondents:Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum/Commission does not have jurisdiction to go into vires of a contract/agreement entered into by a statutory or public authority in exercise of its statutory functions.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Allotment of sites—Non-development of sites—Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is very wide and even cases involving rendering of services by statutory and public authorities fall within its domain—Such authorities become liable to compensate a “Consumer” under the Act, for the loss or injury suffered by him on account of its oppressive, capricious, arbitrary or negligent act—Word ‘Compensation’ is of very vide connotation—Once Forum is satisfied that Complainant has suffered harassment or mental agony and is entitled to compensation, it is obliged to adequately compensate Complainant for actual loss or expected loss which would extend to compensation for physical, mental or emotional sufferings. (Para 14)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Allotment of sites—Non-development of sites—Consumer Forum/Commission does not have jurisdiction to go into vires of a contract/agreement entered into by a statutory or public authority in exercise of its statutory functions—A legal relationship governing performance and consequences flowing from alleged breach of a contract has to be worked out under normal civil law, with reference to Contract Act or Specific Relief Act and not under the Act—In present case, Complainants did not even participate in public auction—Decision of District Forum, declaring auction to be null, void and invalid, set aside—As a necessary corollary, other directions relating to delivery of possession also set aside and Complaint dismissed, leaving Complainants and Opposite Parties to work out appropriate remedies for redressal of their respective grievances against HUDA. (Paras 15 and 16)
Result: Revision Petitions Partly allowed.
1. Delay condoned.
2. These three sets of cross Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), are directed against the order dated 25.09.2009, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.2442 and 2261 of 2004, preferred by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short “HUDA”) and Dr. Hemant Kumar and Satpal, Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 respectively, in Original Complaint No. 250/2004, filed by Dr. K.D. Soni and Dr.(Mrs.) Anita Soni. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Appeals, holding that since the possession of Clinic Site No.6, Sector-31, Faridabad, originally allotted to Dr. K.D. Soni and Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Soni, the Complainants, had been delivered to them, both the Appeals had been rendered infructuous.
3. The said Appeals had been filed against the order dated 23.06.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Faridabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 250 of 2004. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by Dr. K.D. Soni and Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Soni, with expedition without measure, i.e. within one month of its filing, the District Forum had issued the following directions to HUDA:
“1. The auction held on 22.10.2003 regarding clinic site at Sector-14 Faridabad is declared as null, void and invalid.
2. The respondent No.1 is further ordered to allot site No.1 Sector-14 Faridabad to the complainants in lieu of site No. 6, Sector-31 Faridabad, originally allotted to the complainants, on the similar price terms and conditions which were applicable to the site No.6 Sector-31, Faridabad.
3. The respondent No.1 is also ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposit made by the complainants towards site No.6 Sector-31 Faridabad, w.e.f. its deposit till the delivery of the alternative plot as ordered above.
4. The respondent No.1 is also ordered not to charge any type of interest, penal interest, penalty and extension fee from the complainants upto the period of delivery of possession of the alternative plot i.e. site No.1 Sector-14 Faridabad.
5. The respondent No.1 is also ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
6. The respondent No.1 is also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order. However, the order can also be got complied with by the G.P.A. of the complainant. Complaint has been disposed of accordingly. …”
4. There are three sets of litigants in these proceedings, viz. the (i) the Original Complainants, namely, Dr. K.D. Soni & Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Soni; (ii) HUDA; and (iii) Dr. Hemant Kumar and Satpal. All of them have filed separate Revision Petitions questioning the correctness of the same order dated 25.09.2009, and therefore, all these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Since, the factual scenario of the case is little convoluted, the parties shall be referred to in the manner as they were impleaded in the Complaint. Revision Petitions No. 575 – 576 of 2010, preferred by the Complainants, are commonly treated as the lead case and the facts, referred to hereinafter, are taken from the said Revision Petitions.
5. Pursuant to a Scheme floated by HUDA, on 29.03.1991, the Complainants applied for allotment of a Clinic Site in Faridabad by depositing a sum of Rs.2,500/-. On 06.06.1994, HUDA issued a letter of intent to the Complainants, in respect of Clinic Site No.6, Sector – 31, Faridabad, admeasuring 250 sq. yards. When after a lapse of almost two years, HUDA failed to deliver possession of the said Site to the Complainants, they filed a Writ Petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In compliance of the order dated 27.05.1996, passed by the High Court, on 23.07.1996, HUDA issued a letter to the Complainant
