DEVINDER KUMAR ANAND Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three revision petitions as detailed in the heading above, have been filed challenging the order dated 8.7,2011. passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in F.A. No. 482 of 2006, Smt. Sudesh Kumari and Others Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, F.A. No. 843 of 2006, HUDA Vs. Devinder Kumar Anand and Others and F.A No. 465 of 2006, Devinder Kumar Anand and Others Vs. HUDA. The State Commission vide this order, accepted Appeal No. 843 of 2006 filed by HUDA and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in C.C No. 221 of 2004 dated 31.1.2006 and dismissed the said consumer complaint. A copy of this order be placed on each of the files in the three revision petitions.

(2.) The factual matix of the case states that the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kamal held an auction of booths on 23.12.2003, situated in Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal. The complainants, Devinder Kumar Anand,his wife Monika, Janak Raj and Smt. Sudesh Kumari gave the highest bid in the auction for booth Nos. 97 and 98 in Sector-8, Karnal. Devinder Kumar Anand signed the bid sheet as a token of completion of the bid in their favour. As per the terms and conditions of the bid, 10% of the total consideration I or both the booths amounting to Rs. 1,74,800 was deposited with HUDA (out of which Rs. 87,000 was meant for booth No. 97 and Rs. 87,800 for booth No. 98 being 10% of total consideration Rs. 8.00 lakh and Rs. 8.78 lakh respectively). Out of this amount, a total sum of Rs. 1,40,000 had already been deposited h as security amount. It is alleged that the Estate Officer, HUDA issued an allotment letter for one booth only, bearing No. 97 through Memo No. 919 dated 4.2.2004, but the said letter was issued in the name of three persons only and the name of one complainant Sudesh Kumari seems to have been left out inadvertently. The Estate Officer asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,30,500 as 157o amount for the said booth within a period of 30 days in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment. However the complainants sent a legal notice to HUDA vide letter dated 1.3.2004, asking them to amend their allotment letter Consequently, HUDA issued Memo No. 5471 dated 11.3.2004, saying that the name of Sudesh Kumari, w/o Janak Raj had been added in the allotment letter and they also issued a revised allotment letter which included her name as well. On the other hand, the allotment for booth No. 97 was cancelled by HUDA vide their letter dated 4.3.2004 and amount of Rs. 87,000 in respect of booth No. 97 was ordered to be forfeited, taking the plea that the allottees had failed to deposit 15% of the allotment money within time. The case of the petitioners/complainants is that once the allotment letter was revised on 11.3.2004, the said period of 30 days for the deposit of 15% of the cost of the booth should have started from 11.3.2004 only. The cancellation of booth No. 97 made by HUDA was, therefore, not justified. The petitioners have also stated that they prepared a bank draft dated 12.4.2004, bearing No. 821469 from the Bank of Punjab Ltd., Karnal for an amount of Rs. 1,30,500 and deposited it with HUDA. The HUDA prepared a receipt No. 42674 dated 12.4.2004 and the same was signed, but it was cancelled later and the tendered amount was not accepted. The case of the petitioner is that the action of HUDA in cancelling the allotment of booth No. 97 was therefore not justified.

(3.) Regarding booth No. 98, the stand taken by the HUDA is that out of an amount of Rs. 87,800 received by them, Rs. 20,000 was meant for booth No. 404, Sector-4, Kamal for which the complainant Devinder Kumar had also given the bid. However, since the complainants failed to deposit 107. for the amount for booth No. 404, Sector-4, Karnal, they cancelled the bid for booth No. 404 and forfeited the amount of Rs. 20.000. In this way, the amount deposited for booth No. 98 was left as Rs. 87,800 minus Rs. 20.000, equal to Rs. 67,800. The HUDA sent a letter dated 24.3.2004, saying that sum of Rs. 20,000 more should be deposited with them, failing which they shall take steps to cancel the bid for booth No. 98. On the failure of the complainants in depositing further amount of Rs. 20,000, HUDA forfeited a sum of Rs. 20,000 from Rs. 67,800 as well, and refunded an amount of Rs. 67,800 - Rs. 20,000, equal to Rs. 47,800 through cheque No. 384293 dated 20.4.2004. The said cheuqe was not encashed by the complainants as per their version and admitted by HUDA also. Consequently, the allotment letter for booth No. 98 was not issued. The stand of the complainant is that they never made any bid for booth No. 404 and the entire amount of Rs. 87,800 was made for booth No. 98 only and hence, the action of HUDA in transferring the amount of Rs. 20,000 for the bid for booth No 404 v/as totally unwarranted The forfeiture of Rs. 20,000 plus Rs,20,000 equal to Rs,40,000 of HUDA therefore, was not called for and they have indulged in deficiency of service towards the complainants The complainants stated that booth Nos. 97 and 98 both should be allotted to them.