SHANKAR BIRMIWAL Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shankar Birmiwal has filed this complaint against the opposite-parties on 16.10.89 under Sec.12 read with Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 ("the Act" herein) for various reliefs. The complainant who is a practising lawyer gave a bid on 29.7.87 in the auction of a plot which was held by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA ). The complainant was declared the highest bidder. He deposited the Rs.60,619/- within time. Remaining three fourth amount was to be deposited on the confirmation of sale for which a demand note was to be issued by opposite-party No.1. This was to be done in accordance with demand note-cum-confirmation of sale letter dated 31.7.87. The power of attorney holder submitted cheques before the Secretary for a sum of Rs.1,81,857.25 on 29.9.87. The cheques were not accepted on the ground that part payment cannot be accepted. Thereafter an application was submitted before opposite- party No.1 for the correction of the demand note. It may be mentioned that the demand note dated 31.7.87 which was issued envisaged an amount of Rs.794.35 (Sahari Jamabandi) and Rs.25/- (Site Map fees ). Thus a balance of Rs.1,82,676.60 was demanded. The complain- ant submitted the cheques after deducting the aforesaid two amounts as these amounts could not have been demanded by opposite-party No.1. However, demand note was not corrected and contrary to it despite reminders opposite-party No.1 informed the complain- ant by its letter dated 6.2.88 that the amount deposited by him stands forfeited and the auction of the plot was cancelled. An appeal was filed before the JDA, Tribunal. The Tribunal held in its order dated 3.8.88 that the Sahari Jamanbandi amount could not have been demanded by the authority nor a sum of Rs.25/- demanded as site plan charges could be demanded as opposite-party No. l had no legal authority to demand such amounts. The appeal was however dismissed by the JDA, Tribunal on 3.8.88. Thereupon, the complain- ant filed Writ Petition No.2700/1988 in the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The writ petition was dismissed on 21.12.88. After that the complainant had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, which is said to be still pending. The complainant has filed this complaint praying that the complainant has suffered tentative loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the interest amount besides the mental agony. The following reliefs have also been sought: "1. that a specific direction be issued against the respondent to handover the possession of the plot after granting the patta and allow him to raise construction so as to have the user of the plot that the complainant has prayed for the award of costs amounting Rs.10,000/-. "

(2.) Photo Stat copies of the documents Anx. l to Anx.5 were submitted. True copy of the order of the High Court marked as Anx.6 was also submitted. After registering the complaint it was ordered that a notice may be issued to the complainant to appear before the State Commission to satisfy that the complaint can be entertained and heard by the State Commission despite the order dated 21.12.88 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Jaipur in D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.2700/1988. In pursuance of that appearance has been put on behalf of the complainant by Shri P. C. Jain, Advocate. Learned Counsel for the complainant was heard on the question regarding the maintaina- bility of the complaint.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the complainant pressed that the complaint is maintainable as opposite-party No. l renders service to the public of which complainant is a member and that the service rendered by the complainant suffers from "deficiency" as defined in Sec.2 (1) (g) of the Act. He submitted that the powers under the Act can be exercised by the State Commission as according to Sec.3 of the Act, are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. He, therefore, urged that though the complainant was unsuccessful before the JDA, Tribunal and in the High Court still he can pursue his remedy by filing the complaint before the authority established under the Act. We have bestowed our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant. It may be recalled that JDA, Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the complainant on 3.8.88. In the writ petition the complainant challenged the order contained in letter dated 6.2.88 issued by opposite-party No.1 in which it was stated that the amount deposited by the complainant stands forfeited and the auction of the plot was cancelled. This was challenged in the writ petition. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in its order dated 21.12.88 observed as follows :-