Municipal Board, Todaraisingh vs Gopal Lal Sharma

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 2236/2006, "Municipal Board, Todarraisingh through Chairman, Municipal Board, Todaraisingh & Anr. versus Gopal Lal Sharma ", vide which appeal against the order dated 15.11.2006, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tonk (Rajasthan) was dismissed and the said order of the District Forum, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner Municipal Board, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan is a statutory body created under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The petitioner issued a public advertisement on 18.06.1968 for auction sale of 19 residential plots, situated between Bhuda Ka Balaji to Dev Ji Temple in Todaraisingh city, and laid down certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions was that 1/4th of the auction price of the highest bid was required to be deposited at the site of auction and the balance 3/4th of the auction price was to be deposited within one month from the date of the demand raised by the Municipal Board. The respondent/complainant participated in the auction for plot no. 9, measuring 60ft. X 40ft. on 28.06.1968 and his auction bid @ Rs.1.75/ - per sq. yard was accepted as the highest bid. The respondent / complainant deposited 1/4th amount of the consideration, i.e., Rs.100/ - of the plot on 1.07.1968. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent did not deposit the said 1/4th amount on the date of auction but deposited it three days later. Further, the respondent/complainant failed to deposit the balance 3/4th of the bid amount, i.e., Rs.366.67ps. despite notices sent to him by the petitioners on various dates. The allotment of plot was, therefore, cancelled accordingly as per condition no. 5 of the auction. Further, the Collector, Tonk vide his letter no. 4477 dated 17.11.71, allotted the said land to Government School and stadium in one of the schemes. The auction bidders were given options to have another land in the vicinity at Subhash Colony. The complainant, however, filed the consumer complaint in question, but the same was dismissed on 26.05.2005 on grounds of limitation. However, an appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was allowed by them on 08.09.2006 and the case was remanded to the District Forum with directions to decide the complaint on merits. The complaint was then allowed by the District Forum on 15.11.2006, directing the petitioners to allot another plot of equal size on deposit of rest of /4th consideration. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal before the State Commission and the said Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the auction bid in which the complainant got the plot in question was made on 28.06.1968, but 1/4th of the amount was deposited by the complainant on 01.07.68, i.e., 3 days later than the date prescribed. The balance 3/4th of the amount was to be deposited within one month, but the complainant failed to deposit that amount, despite notices sent to him. A notice was sent to him on 19.09.68, stating that the balance amount of Rs.366.67/ - should be deposited within a time of one week, failing which the 1/4th amount already deposited shall stand forfeited and the auction made in his favour shall stand cancelled. Another notice was sent to him on 22.1.69, stating the same position, but despite these notices, the complainant did not deposit the amount in question. On 17.11.71, the plot in question and some other plots were allotted in favour of the Government school for play -ground. Further, on 2.2.88, one Radhey Shyam and the complainant made an application before the petitioner saying that they were not willing to accept the plot in Subhash Colony, but if the plots are allotted to them near the road, they will have no objection. The petitioner sent another notice dated 25.09.91 in which it was again stated that the remaining consideration of the plot of Rs.366.67/ - and Rs.1020.25/ - as interest should be deposited with them so that the plot could be handed over to him, but still the complainant did not deposit the amount. The learned counsel then narrated about the consumer complaint filed in 2005 and the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission as mentioned above. Learned counsel maintained that there had been no deficiency in service on their part, as they had been writing to the complainant from time to time and making efforts for alternate plots on deposit of the balance amount. The complainant was, however, interested in getting plot at the most prime location, but at the rates prevalent in 1968, and such request could not be granted. The learned counsel further argued that the consumer complaint in question was barred by limitation and although this point had earlier been examined by the State Commission and they held the complaint to be within limitation, but still the issue of limitation could be considered as there was no estoppel against question of law. This view had been taken in judgement given by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court as reported in 1965 AIR 1325, "Chittori Subbanna versus Kudapa Subbana and Ors. ".

LEARNED counsel for the complainant / respondent submitted that although the plot in question had been allotted to him by the petitioner, but the said plot along with some other land was subsequently allotted to a Government School and hence there was injustice with the complainant and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant was always ready to deposit the balance amount and even now, he was ready to deposit the said amount, provided plot at suitable location is given to him.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The facts as admitted by the parties are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 9 measuring 60 ft. X 40 ft. in auction sale held on 28.06.68. The initial 1/4th amount of the total value of the bid was also deposited by the complainant, although late by three days. However, the complainant has not been able to explain as to why he failed to deposit the balance 3/4th of the amount in question. The notices were also sent to him by the petitioner/OP on 19.09.68 and 22.01.69, but still the complainant failed to deposit the balance amount and the reasons for the same have not been explained anywhere. Later on, the said plot and some other area was allotted to a Government school but still the petitioner/OP offered to allot him plot in some other colony and a notice to this fact was also sent on 25.9.91, but still the complainant failed to deposit the balance 3/4th of the amount. In the year 1991, i.e., 23 years after the initial allocation, the petitioner asked the complainant to pay the same amount as was due in the year 1968, but the complainant failed to avail of the said offer. In the light of these facts, it becomes clear that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners in any manner and they were well within their rights to cancel the allotment, once the balance amount was not deposited, despite notices sent to the complainant.

IN the light of this discussion, it is very clear that the orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Forum do not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts on record and the said orders are perverse, as there is no justification in allotment of plot to the complainant at old rates in view of the facts that he failed to deposit the necessary amount despite notices sent to him. The present revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The consumer complaint in question, is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.