Legal Question in Consumer Law in India

III (2007) CPJ 127 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Hon?ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member & Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member

HARISH GOYAL?Appellant

versus

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY?Respondent

First Appeal No. 73 of 2002?Decided on 5.2.2007

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? Section 19 ? Housing ? Delay in delivery of possession ? Plot purchased in auction ? Possession given late despite timely payment ? Complaint for award of interest on deposited amount for delayed period ? Dismissed ? Hence appeal ? Not giving possession of plot purchased in auction despite full price paid amounts to deficiency in service ? Complaint maintainable ? Impugned order set aside ? Matter remanded to State Commission.

[Para 2]

Result : Appeal allowed.

Cases referred :

1. Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Sanjay Kumar, III (2002) CPJ 107 (NC). (Relied)

[Para 2]

2. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243. (Relied)

[Para 2]

Counsel for the Parties :

For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Nemo.

ORDER

Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member? 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.

4. Parties shall appear before the State Commission on 18.4.2007 for directions.

Appeal allowed.

????????????????????

You may need to understand and explain the definition of consumer.

contact a local lawyer.