Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(All) 3073

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
R.C.Jain, Anupam Dasgupta, JJ.
Rajil Khod -Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority -Respondent
Revision Petition No. 729 of 2011 (From the order dated 26.11.2010 in Appeal no. 1146 of 2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
Decided On : 18-11-2011

Advocates:
Mr. S. S. Jangra, Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. B. S. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Badhran, Advocate for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that an auction purchaser of a plot of land can be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate on the dispute cannot be ousted by the mechanical application of a Supreme Court decision.

Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - HUDA Allotment Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)(ii), Section 17 - The court discussed the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the allotment letter in the context of an auction purchaser's status as a 'consumer' and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate on the dispute. The court emphasized the commitment of the authority to deliver possession after completion of development works and the evidence of deficiency in service by the respondent HUDA.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner participated in an auction held by the respondent HUDA and was allotted a commercial plot of land. The respondent failed to deliver possession of the plot after completing the development works, leading to a consumer complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission reduced the rate of interest. The respondent issued a notice to show cause for not raising construction, leading to a second complaint, which was also allowed by the District Forum. The State Commission allowed the respondent's appeal solely based on the ratio of a Supreme Court judgment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the auction purchaser was a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate on the dispute could not be ousted by the mechanical application of the Supreme Court's decision. The court modified the direction of the District Forum and directed the respondent HUDA to pay an overall compensation of Rs. one lakh to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the status of the auction purchaser as a 'consumer', and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate on the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the auction purchaser was a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora could not be ousted by the mechanical application of the Supreme Court's decision. The court emphasized the commitment of the authority to deliver possession after completion of development works and the evidence of deficiency in service by the respondent HUDA.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the State Commission was set aside. The court directed the respondent HUDA to pay an overall compensation of Rs. one lakh to the petitioner.

Hon'ble Anupam Dasgupta : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 1146 of 2002. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, 'the HUDA') against the order dated 25.02.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short, 'the District Forum') in complaint case no.611 of 2001 filed by the petitioner herein.

2. (i) The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. He participated in an auction held by the respondent and, being the highest bidder for the sum of Rs.3,30,500/-, was allotted a commercial plot of land (DSS 69) measuring 78.78 sq. mtr in the Old Court Area, Hisar by allotment letter dated 31.07.1990. He paid all the instalments for the price of the plot of land by 02.01.1996. However, the respondent failed to deliver/offer possession of the plot after completing the development works in the area in accordance with clause 6 of the allotment letter. The petitioner was thus constrained to file a consumer complaint (no. 930 of 1996) against the respondent before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent for failing to offer possession of the plot of land despite repeated requests over nearly six years since the issue of the letter of allotment.

(ii) By its order dated 04.08.1998, the District Forum allowed the complaint holding that the complainant/petitioner had purchased the plot of land in question to earn his livelihood and the respondent could not keep the development works pending at its sweet will. The District Forum, therefore, awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the entire auction price of the plot from the dates of deposit of the amounts till the date of offer of possession of the plot.

(iii) The respondent HUDA went up in appeal before the State Commission which was disposed of by the State Commission by its order dated 25.11.1998 upholding the substantive part of the order dated 04.08.1998 of the District Forum but reducing the rate of interest to 15% per annum on the amounts deposited after expiry of two years from the date of the initial deposit. The respondent HUDA deposited Rs. 1,94,233/- on 30.03.2006 in compliance of the aforesaid order of the State Commission and the amount was then disbursed to the petitioner/complainant.

(iv) However, on 26.07.2001, the respondent issued a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the plot of land should not be resumed because the petitioner had failed to raise construction on it within the stipulated time. This forced the petitioner to file a second complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of the show cause notice dated 26.07.2001. By its order dated 25.02.2002, the District Forum allowed the complaint, quashed the show cause notice dated 26.07.2001 and also awarded interest @ 15% per annum from 07.10.1997 on the entire deposited amount till the date of fresh offer of physical possession of the plot by the respondent after carrying out the requisite development works in the area. In addition, the District Forum awarded to the petitioner Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and cost of Rs.1100/-. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum also observed, on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner that there were bushes and scrub trees in and around the plots; the ground had not been levelled and there was no metalled or unmetalled road leading to the plot at that point of time.

(iv) The respondent HUDA preferred an appeal to the State Commission against this order dated 25.02.2002 of the District Forum. It is this appeal that was allowed by the State Commission by its impugned order dated 26.11.2010, relying solely on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis