MADHU SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION Petition No.1105 of 2012 has been filed against the order dated 5.12.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (short, "State Commission ") in First Appeal No.2025 of 2004. The brief facts as given in the complaint by petitioner/complainant are that the respondent/opposite party as per the auction of 29.1.1991, allotted her by sale a commercial Kiosk bearing No.45 in Sector 15 -A -II at Faridabad against the price of Rs.99,300/ - measuring 6 ' -9 ' ' x 12 ' -1 1/2 ". The petitioner as per terms and conditions on several occasions, deposited the sum of Rs.1,33,500/ - against the price of Rs.99,300/ -. As per letter dated 17.3.1997, and the Account Statement dated 13.3.1997, the respondent had demanded a payment of Rs.65,926/ - from the petitioner, whereas this demand of Rs.65,926/ - of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against the terms and conditions of the said allotment letter. The respondent illegally and arbitrarily charged interest against the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

(2.) THE respondent in spite of the payment of more than 25% of the price has failed to deliver possession of the said Kiosk to the petitioner against the terms and conditions of allotment letter. Respondent - HUDA has taken the following preliminary objections in its written statement: - The Kiosk in question was purchased in auction and as per terms and conditions, the present case does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar observations were made in National Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A.O. No.80 of 1992 titled "Ramesh Chand Vs. HUDA ". As such, the present petition/complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum. Since the petitioner has not availed of the remedy of filing an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad exercising the power of Chief Administration, HUDA and as such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The jurisdiction of the District Forum is barred under Section 50 of the HUDA Act to entertain and try the present complaint. The present complaint relates to immoveable property and as such, does not come within the definition of Goods under the "Sales of Goods Act " and as such, the complaint desires dismissal on this score alone. The site in question being immovable property and a commercial site and as such, the present complaint cannot be launched under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present complaint is not maintainable as the site in question was purchased in auction. The petition deserves to be dismissed as the complainant has contravened the terms and conditions of allotment by not depositing the amount due neither within the stipulated period nor till today.

(3.) IT was clearly mentioned in the letter of allotment that after the deposit of 25% of the price of the Kiosk, as per clause 5 of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was at liberty to take possession of the Kiosk in question. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, "District Forum ") vide their order dated 29.6.2009 came to the following conclusions;