CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

MAHABIR PRASAD vs D.D.A.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 September 1993 · Citation: 1993 3 CPR 543 : 1994 1 CPC 294 : 1994 1 CPJ 214

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.N.Mittal , S.Brar , A.N.Saxena J.
RESULT
Complaint dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 369 words
1.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the DDA auctioned plots in East of Kailash on 6.6.88. The complainant gave a bid for plot No. F-8 measuring 415.14 sq. meters for an amount of Rs. 50 lacs. He deposited Rs. 12 lacs 50 thousands on the same date, and the balance amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- on 11.7.88. It is alleged that he filed all the documents which were required by the respondent, on 13.7.88. However, the possession of the plot was delivered to him on 31st October, 1988.

2.

THE complainant has further pleaded that as soon as he completed all the formalities i.e. deposited the amount and the documents the possession of the plot should have been delivered to him. However, it was not done. Consequently he was entitled to interest on the amount deposited as price of the plot and Rs. 1 lac as damages for mental harassment. The respondent contested the claim and controverted the allegations of the complainant. They have further pleaded that the Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

The learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the plot was auctioned and not allotted to the complainant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Allied (Garments) Exports Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DDA, 1991 (5) CPR 580. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find force in the submission of the Counsel for the respondent. It was held in similar circumstances by the National Commission in the above case that no relief could be granted to the complainant since the transaction was not one of the allotment of the plots as part of a scheme for providing housing facility to the public, but one of straight sale of immovable property at an auction. We are in respectful agreement with the above said observations. Therefore, we hold that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In view of the aforesaid view, it is not necessary to decide the complaint on merits.

3.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.