SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member
Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Babu Ram Chaudhary – Respondent
Revision Petition No.3254 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 04/06/2013 in Appeal No.39/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 9.2.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Nemo

IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant was not a consumer under Act of 1986 as Kiosks were clearly purchased for commercial purposes.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Allotment of Kiosks – Auction – Scope – Respondent-complainant participated in the auction for allotment of Kiosks, however allotment refused – Complainant was not a consumer as Kiosks were clearly purchased for commercial purpose – Since bid had not been accepted by competent authority, there was no allotment made – Impugned order of Fora below set aside.

Held: Admittedly, the respondent/complainant participated in the auction for allotment of Kiosks. Sealed bids were received from 16.06.2010 to 28.06.2010. The bid was higher than the reserve price. On opening of the bids on 28.06.2010, it was found to be the highest among all the proposals for the said plot number 7-A-S-11. 10% of the said amount was paid on 28.06.2010 through a draft and the remaining 15% was paid on 29.06.2012 by the respondent/complainant. The respondent/ complainant was informed however through registered letter that the allotment had been refused and that on submission of original receipts, the amount deposited could be collected. Learned counsel made two main arguments as to why the State Commission and the District Forum. In the order of the National Commission in R.P. Nos.1319 and 1320 of 2013 (RHB Vs. Ghanshyam Jaswani) a similar view had been taken. In view of the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission and consequently that of the District Forum is set aside. (Paras 7 to 10)

Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition No.3254 of 2013 challenges the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur, Rajasthan (for short, ‘State Commission’) dated 4.6.2013 in Appeal No. 39 of 2013. Vide this order, the State Commission had confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur 1, Rajasthan (for short, ‘District Forum’) dated 25.1.2012. In turn, the District Forum had directed as below:

“So plaint of complaint is accepted and it is directed that defendant jointly or separately according to rule after receiving rest amount from complainant to be given physically possession on land No. 7-A-S-11 after issuing allotted letter within one month date of order. If defendant has allotted dispute land another then be provided same size and rate of other business land of Kudi Bhagtani Housing Scheme to complainant. Apart from it mental compensation Rs.5000/- and expense of Rs.3000/- total Rs.8000/- paid to complainant.”

2. This matter was heard on 4.2.2021. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant-Babu Ram Chaudhary. Advocate on record appearing for the respondent/complainant was contacted. He however informed that he had since joined government service and was no longer representing the respondent. Notably, no such information had been shared with the Commission or with the petitioner/petitioner’s Counsel either by the Counsel or by the respondent/complainant. Even on the last date, 20.10.2020 no one had appeared for the respondent. It was clear therefore that the respondent/complaint was not interested in contesting this revision petition. In order not to delay the matter any further, counsel for the petitioner was heard ex-parte.

3. His brief submissions were that a similar matter has already been decided by the National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 1319 and 1320 of 2013. The said two revision petitions arose out of the same auction proceeding as is the case with the present Revision Petition No. 3254 of 2013. Facts are similar. In the instant case, brief facts are that on 28.06.2010, the respondent/complainant took part in an auction and offered his bid at Rs.22,111/- per sq. metre. This was the highest bid received by the petitioner/OP. The reserve rate of the land under auction was Rs.21,500.

4. The auctioneer committee sent their recommendations to the petitioner no.3/OP3 - Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board. The same however was not accepted and in this way, the respondent/complainant was denied the auction plot. A consumer complaint was therefore filed before the District Forum, seeking directions to allot the above said land No.7-A-S-11 and give possession thereof along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2500/- and other expenses of Rs.1000/-.

5. This was contested through a written reply. It was contended that while admittedly the respondent/complainant bid was the highest, the same had been rejected as it appeared to the competent authority that the submitted rate was not competitive. It was argued that until the bid proposal is accepted, the contract is not completed. It was further argued that the Rajasthan Housing Board has the power to accept and reject of any proposal without assigning any reason thereof as per condition number 12 of the public advertisement. So arguing, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.

6. As noted earlier, this consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum as also upheld by the State Commission. Hence, this revision petition.

7. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant participated in the auction for allotment of Kiosks. Sealed bids were received from 16.06.2010 to 28.06.2010. The bid was higher than the reserve price. On opening of the bids on 28.06.2010, it was found to be the highest among all the proposals for the said plot number 7-A-S-11. 10% of the said amount was paid on 28.06.2010 through

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top