MUNICIPAL BOARD, TODARAISINGH Vs. GOPAL LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 2236/2006, "Municipal Board, Todarraisingh through Chairman, Municipal Board, Todaraisingh & Anr. versus Gopal Lal Sharma", vide which appeal against the order dated 15.11.2006, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tonk (Rajasthan) was dismissed and the said order of the District Forum, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Municipal Board, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan is a statutory body created under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The petitioner issued a public advertisement on 18.06.1968 for auction sale of 19 residential plots, situated between Bhuda Ka Balaji to Dev Ji Temple in Todaraisingh city, and laid down certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions was that 1/4th of the auction price of the highest bid was required to be deposited at the site of auction and the balance 3/4th of the auction price was to be deposited within one month from the date of the demand raised by the Municipal Board. The respondent/complainant participated in the auction for plot no. 9, measuring 60ft. X 40ft. on 28.06.1968 and his auction bid @ '1.75/- per sq. yard was accepted as the highest bid. The respondent / complainant deposited 1/4th amount of the consideration, i.e., Rs. 100/- of the plot on 1.07.1968. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent did not deposit the said 1/4th amount on the date of auction but deposited it three days later. Further, the respondent/complainant failed to deposit the balance 3/4th of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 366.67ps. despite notices sent to him by the petitioners on various dates. The allotment of plot was, therefore, cancelled accordingly as per condition no. 5 of the auction. Further, the Collector, Tonk vide his letter no. 4477 dated 17.11.71, allotted the said land to Government School and stadium in one of the schemes. The auction bidders were given options to have another land in the vicinity at Subhash Colony. The complainant, however, filed the consumer complaint in question, but the same was dismissed on 26.05.2005 on grounds of limitation. However, an appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was allowed by them on 08.09.2006 and the case was remanded to the District Forum with directions to decide the complaint on merits. The complaint was then allowed by the District Forum on 15.11.2006, directing the petitioners to allot another plot of equal size on deposit of rest of 3/4th consideration. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal before the State Commission and the said Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the auction bid in which the complainant got the plot in question was made on 28.06.1968, but 1/4th of the amount was deposited by the complainant on 01.07.68, i.e., 3 days later than the date prescribed. The balance 3/4th of the amount was to be deposited within one month, but the complainant failed to deposit that amount, despite notices sent to him. A notice was sent to him on 19.09.68, stating that the balance amount of Rs. 366.67/- should be deposited within a time of one week, failing which the 1/4th amount already deposited shall stand forfeited and the auction made in his favour shall stand cancelled. Another notice was sent to him on 22.1.69, stating the same position, but despite these notices, the complainant did not deposit the amount in question. On 17.11.71, the plot in question and some other plots were allotted in favour of the Government school for play-ground. Further, on 2.2.88, one Radhey Shyam and the complainant made an application before the petitioner saying that they were not willing to accept the plot in Subhash Colony, but if the plots are allotted to them near the road, they will have no objection. The petitioner sent another notice dated 25.09.91 in which it was again stated that the remaining consideration of the plot of Rs. 366.67/- and Rs. 1020.25/- as interest should be deposited with them so that the plot could be handed over to him, but still the complainant did not deposit the amount. The learned counsel then narrated about the consumer complaint filed in 2005 and the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission as mentioned above. Learned counsel maintained that there had been no deficiency in service on their part, as they had been writing to the complainant from time to time and making efforts for alternate plots on deposit of the balance amount. The complainant was, however, interested in getting plot at the most prime location, but at the rates prevalent in 1968, and such request could not be granted. The learned counsel further argued that the consumer complaint in question was barred by limitation and although this point had earlier been examined by the State Commission and they held the complaint to be within limitation, but still the issue of limitation could be considered as there was no estoppel against question of law. This view had been taken in judgement given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in "Chittori Subbanna versus Kudapa Subbana and Ors, 1965 AIR(SC) 1325.".