HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission) dated 8.6.2009 in first appeal No. 2018/2007 whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal preferred by the petitioner Board and ordered thus: -

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that on 9th October, 2000 the petitioner Housing Board held an open auction for allotment of shopping booth site situated at Housing Board Colony, Sirsa. The Respondent was declared successful in bidding for shopping both site No.24 measuring 27 sq. yards. The total bid amount was Rs.3,31,000/-. The respondent/complainant deposited 25% of the bid amount Rs.82,000/- at the time of acceptance of the bid and paid further 15% of the total price i.e. Rs.49,650/- after the issuance of allotment letter. Balance 60% cost was to be paid in 16 half yearly instalments. The respondent/complainant failed to adhere to the schedule of payment of instalments. Accordingly various demand notices were issued by the petitioner Board. Ultimately, vide letter dated 9th November, 2004 the petitioner Board made a final demand of Rs.50814/- from the respondent/complainant alongwith interest. The complainant disputed the demand on the plea as to why instead of 27 sq. yard plot he was given possession of plot measuring 18 yards. The basis for the aforesaid plea was that as per the allotment agreement the complainant was required to leave 9 sq. yard space out of plot for a veranda meant for public passage. Thus, the stand of the complainant is that he is not liable to pay the price for 9 sq. yards of land which is meant for construction of veranda. Accordingly, the complainant raised the consumer dispute by filing a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Sirsa.

(3.) The petitioner Board in the written statement denied the allegations made by the complainant. It was pleaded that the complainant did not avail of departmental remedy before filing the present complaint. According to the opposite party the shopping booth was allotted to the complainant in an open auction and therefore the complainant is not even a 'Consumer' as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable.