HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECTOR 6. PANCHKULA THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR Vs. S.P. BATHIA S.P. BATHLA HOUSE NO.1955.SECTOR. 12. SONEPAT HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that OP/petitioner issued public notice for sale of booth and complainant/respondent deposited Rs. 10,000.00 and participated in the auction which was held on 9.11.2004. Complainant gave highest bid of Rs. 11.86 lakhs against reserve price of Rs. 11.50 lakhs, but he was surprised to know that Estate Officer cancelled auction without disclosing reasons and refused to accept 10% of the total auction of the site. As per complainant he was highest bidder of the site and was entitled to allotment of site but OP cancelled auction illegally. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted participation of complainant in auction, but submitted that as bidder gathered and indulged in mal practise bid was withdrawn and auction was cancelled; so, 10% bid money was also not taken from the complainant. Complainant refused to take cheque of deposited money. It was further submitted that District Forum, Panchkula had no jurisdiction as property in auction is situated at Sonepat and complainant is also resident of Sonepat and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed complainant to deposit 25% of the bid amount with 10% p.a. interest and OP was directed to issue allotment letter and further awarded cost of Rs. 1,000.00. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and complainant was directed to deposit amount with 12% p.a. interest instead of 10% against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for respondent even after service of notice and he was proceeded ex parte.