IMPORTANT POINT
An allottee cannot be compelled to clear dues of previous allottee.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 151 of 2009 whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. Case of the Complainant/Petitioner was that Complainant had applied for allotment of shed pursuant to the advertisement of Opposite Party No.-1.The Complainant made an application dated 05.04.1999 along with an amount of Rs.15,000/- by way of Demand Draft .The Complainant was allotted Shed No. L/278/6 at Pandesara, Surat, vide allotment letter dated 18.09.1999. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- towards allotment of the shed as initial payment. The Complainant was informed that he would get electricity connection from the Gujarat Electricity Board in due course. The transfer of possession of the allotted shed was made, vide letter dated 14.10.1999. Opposite Party No.3 informed the Complainant, vide letter dated 30.06.2000, that the previous allottee of the shed was due Rs.1,26,479/- to the Gujarat Electricity Board towards electricity charges. The Complainant, vide letter dated 17.09.2001, intimated Opposite Party No.-2 that dues were also pending towards municipal tax of Surat Municipal Corporation. The Complainant requested Opposite Party No. 1 to clear both the outstanding dues and issue clear title of the Shed. Since no action was taken by Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following Prayer:

“a) The Hon’ble forum by holding the respondent in the present case jointly and severally, get to me the electricity connection immediately and by getting recovered the amount due and payable by the previous party towards electricity consumption bill, municipal tax etc. and the possession of the said shed with clear title may please be given and if the respondent should pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- and Rs. 4000/ totaling to 1,76,000/- with interest at the date of 18% per annum. Also an order may please be passed that the possession of the said shed afresh from the respondent No.1 to the complainant and also to pass an order to waive the installment of the loan taken from the respondent as business activity could not commence.

1. An order may please be passed that the respondent should pay to the complainant and amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest as the complainant, as stated in the complaint could not commence the business of making cupboard furniture.

2. To award an amount of Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of this complaint application.

3. Taking into the facts of the complaint of the complainant in its entirety any other and specific relief may please be granted.”

3. The case was contested by Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 before the District Forum. It was contended that the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant was not a Consumer of the Opposite Parties. On merits, Opposite Parties stated that an Agreement for the said shed was executed between the Parties on 18.09.1999. On receipt of payment of Rs.1,60,000/-, the Opposite Parties handed over possession of the shed to the Complainant. The Complainant, however, did not inform about the dues of electricity bills and Municipal taxes. When the Complainant applied for electricity connection, the Gujarat Electricity Board, Pandesara refused to give connection on the ground that certain dues remained payable. Opposite Parties submitted that they there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. The District Forum ordered as follows: -

1. OP No.1 and OP No.2 herein jointly and /or severally should pay to the complainant in the present case, with reference to the industrial shed in question the amount of Rs.1,76,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy-six thousand only) paid to the opponent along with simple interest at the