HARISH GOYAL Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21. 6. 2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing the complaint at admission stage.

(2.) APPELLANT/complainant alleged that in an auction he purchased plot No. C-116, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur for a sum of Rs. 33,79,182 from the respondent-opposite party on 23. 4. 97 and the entire bid amount was deposited by him on 24. 5. 97. He was, however, handed over possession of the plot on 17. 6. 2000. Thus, alleging deficiency the respondent-the appellant filed complaint seeking certain reliefs against the respondent. State Commission was of the view that the complaint pertained to the award of interest on deposited amount for the delayed period and such a complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act' ). In R. P. No. 1242/02 Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Sanjay Kumar, III (2002) CPJ 107 (NC), decided on 30. 7. 2002, this Commission taking note of the ratio in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)= (1994) 1 SCC 243 held that not giving possession of a plot purchased in auction despite complainant's having paid the full price thereof, would fall within the definition of deficiency in service' under the Act. This decision applies on all fours to the facts of present case. Complaint, thus, could not have been dismissed by the State Commission and order of State Commission being bad in law deserves to be set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for complaint being decided on merit.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY while allowing appeal, aforesaid order dated 21. 6. 2001 is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for complaint being decided afresh on merit in accordance with law.