REGIONAL MANAGER RIICO Vs. RAJ KUMAR SETIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. IN a public auction held on 18.3.1989, by the appellant for sale of certain shops, including Shop No.35, at its industrial area in Sriganganagar, the respondent purchased the aforesaid Shop No.35 for Rs.9,450/-. As per terms and conditions of the auction sale, the higher bidder was required to pay 25% of the bid money at the time of fall of hammer and the balance amount of 3/4th of the total consideration was to be paid by him within a week of the holding of the auction. It is the undisputed position between the parties that the respondent had duly deposited 25% of the sale consideration at the fall of the hammer. In order to pay the balance within a week, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash and the remaining part of the balance amounting to Rs.2,192/-, through a cheque dated 30.3.1989. The cheque was however dishonoured. Thereafter the case of the appellant was that despite issuing notices to the respondent by it on 4.5.1989 and 1.1.1990, the respondent did not pay/deposit the balance amount of Rs.2,192/-. Therefore, the sale of the shop in his favour was cancelled on 12.3.1992 as per terms and conditions of the sale.

(2.) The facts of the case further are that on 27.3.1992, 13.1.1963 and 16.9.1993 the respondent moved applications requesting the appellant to receive Rs.2,192/- from him towards the sale consideration of the shop in question. The appellant however did not receive the aforesaid amount on the ground that the sale in favour of the respondent had already been cancelled by the authorities concerned on 12.3.1992.

(3.) Based on above mentioned facts, the respondent filed his complaint before the D. F. at Sriganganagar and alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on the ground that since he had ever been ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.2,192/- but the appellant did not accept the same and that no information regarding cancellation of the sale on 12.3.1992 was given to him.