MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal challenge is to the order dated 18. 5. 2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT, Chandigarh whereby complaint was dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANT/complainant purchased in open auction shop-cum-flat site No. 81 for Rs. 42,50,000 on 29. 8. 2003 from the respondents/opposite parties. In terms of allotment letter dated 15. 10. 2003, 10% of the auction price was to be deposited on the date of acution while 15% within a month. Remaining amount of 75% was to be paid in four equated yearly instalments along with interest @ 15% p. a. and the possession of site was to be given within 90 days of the issuance of allotment letter on payment of 25%. Complaining encroachment on the passage leading to the said site and lack of amenities of parking, street lights and clear view of the main road etc. , the appellant filed complaint seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation as detailed in para 18 of the complaint or in alternative to allot another site of the same size in a fully developed market in Phase X or XI, etc. The complaint was contested by the respondents by filing written version. It was alleged that the appellant had participated in the auction on 29. 8. 2003 with full knowledge of existence of Gurudwara and Khoka like structures in the area as also the stay order granted by Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 28. 10. 2002 agaist removal of Khokhas. Complaint which was filed in January, 2006 while the cause of action had arisen on 29. 8. 2003 was alleged to be barred by time. It was, further pleaded that appellant had paid only 25% of the total auction amount and has not paid balance 75% of the price in instalments. The site in question was allotted to the appellant on 'as is where is basis' and the encroachments by Gurudwara and Khokhas were already there. Existence of Khokhas would not cause obstruction in construction of the premises by the appellant and the complaint had been filed only to avoid payment of remaining 75% of the auction price.

(3.) MAIN thrust of argument advanced by Mr. N. K. Jain for the appellant is that the respondents were deficient in service as they failed to remove the encroachments made by Gurudwara and Khokhas and provide necessary amenities and the complaint was dismissed erroneously by the State Commission. Attention has been drawn to the order dated 22. 5. 2006 in another Complaint Case No. 29 of 2002, Paramjit Singh v. Chief Administrator, PUDA and Ors. , passed by the same State Commission. Admittedly, said Site No. 81 was purchased in open auction on 29. 8. 2003 by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the encroachments complained by Gurudwara and Khokhas existed at the site much before that auction. Respondents allege that Punjab and Haryana High Court made order on 28. 10. 2002 against removal of Khokhas and the appellant was aware of that order. Copy of allotment dated 15. 10. 2003 is at pages 32 to 35. Para 1 (iii) of this letter would show that the site was offered for sale on 'as is where is basis'. In the brochure/advertisement for sale of the site in question, the respondent authorities seem to have not undertaken to remove the encroachments in question. In this backdrop, the appellant on ground of existence of encroachments can neither seek compensation and/or allotment of alternate site as claimed. In para No. 19 of the order the State Commission has brushed aside the plea of lack of amenities and we are in agreement with the reasoning recorded by the Commission in that behalf. Order in aforesaid Complaint Case No. 29 of 2002 has no relevance whatsoever. There is no legal infirmity in the order of State Commission calling for interference under Section 20 (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.