SOM NATH VERMA Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Council Kurali respondents had advertised the sale of plots. The appellant applied for one of the plots. An open auction was held and the appellant had purchased Plot No.6 measuring 16' x 50' situated in Ward No.5, Kurali from the respondents for an amount of Rs.2,07,000 on 24.9.1999.10% of the auction money was deposited at the time of auction and to make up the amount of 25% remaining amount was deposited on 16.11.1999. It was further pleaded that as per the assurance given by the respondents the adjoining plots were to have grassy parks and fountains but the respondents failed to develop that area. Rather, there was a toba (stagnant water) near the plot of the appellant. The respondents had sent letters dated 22.9.1999 and 11.4.2000 asking the appellant to deposit the balance sale price of the plot. Hence the appellant filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "district Forum") to challenge this demand notice and also prayed for compensation and costs.

(2.) The respondents filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the appellant had failed to make the payment of instalments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. He had failed to make the payment of instalments even after the repeated demands. It was admitted that the appellant had participated in the public auction held on 24.9.1999 and had purchased plot No.6 in the open auction for an amount of Rs.2,07,000. Conditions regarding public auction were explained and read over to the parties before the auction was held on 24.9.1999. These were accepted by the intended purchasers including the appellant and were signed by them. The appellant had failed to deposit the amount of Rs.52,450 within a period of one month from the date of auction as per the terms and conditions of the auction. Accordingly notice dated 22.10.1999 was issued to the appellant calling up to deposit an amount of Rs.52,450. It was received by the appellant on 25.10.1999 but without any affect. Thereafter letter dated 11.4.2000 was issued to the appellant asking him to deposit the outstanding amount against him upto 24.4.2000 along with interest but the appellant had refused to accept this letter. An agreement was duly executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents on 12.6.2000 and as per the terms and conditions of the auction and of the agreement the payment of due amount was to be made by the appellant with interest in instalments. Another notice dated 20.1.2003 demanding an amount of Rs.2,11,508 (Rs.1,34,550 as principal and Rs.76,958 as interest) was issued to the appellant but he failed to deposit the same. It was denied if any toba (stagnant water) was there near the plot of the appellant or if any assurance was given to the appellant to develop this area into grassy parks. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

(3.) The appellant filed his affidavit as Ex. C-1 and also proved documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-39. On the other hand, the respondents tendered in evidence affidavit of the Executive Officer Varinder Kumar Jain as Ex. R-1 in the form of reply followed by supplementary affidavit Ex. R-2 and documents Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-15.