STATE OF U T , CHANDIGARH Vs. SANJAY GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 27.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 1390 of 2008 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and OPs were directed to refund him a sum of Rs. two lacs along with interest @ 8%p.a. since the date of deposit i.e. 23.10.2008 till payment. The amount was directed to be paid within thirty days, failing which OPs were made liable to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 with penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the total amount since the filing of complaint i.e. 21.11.2008 till payment.

(2.) THE parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.

(3.) IN nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that in response to the advertisement given by OPs for auction of residential as well as commercial sites on 23.1.2008 at Majlis Hall, Hotel Shivalik View, Sector 17, Chandigarh, the complainant being interested for a booth in Sector 36, participated_in the said auction on the scheduled date and deposited payment of Rs. 2,00,000 in favour of OP -2. The OPs started the auction and booth Nos. 184 and 188 with size of 9' -0" x 29' -7.5" which fetched Rs. 60,60,000 and Rs. 57,10,000 respectively. The OPs announced the auction of corner booth No. 180 with size of 20' -7.5" x 29' -7.5" and reserve price of Rs. 97.00 lacs against which complainant offered bid upto Rs. 1.15 crores. However, soon the complainant came to know that the area/dimension of booth No. 180 included space/Veranda in front of the shop as well as the corridor/Veranda on the side of the shop meant for use of general public which was never disclosed by the OPs whereas the actual area of the said booth was 9' -0" x 29' -7.5". He immediately protested before the fall of hammer and withdrew from the bid. The complainant and other bidders protested against the unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs and requested for refund of Rs. 2,00,000 as he withdrew before the fall of hammer but OPs refused to refund the same. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the parts of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.