B.C. Kandpal, President:
1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 105 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has restrained the revisionist from entering into agreement with any person in regard to the land and property situated at Antriksh NRI City, Haridwar and also from selling the same.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the month of October, 2012, the complainant met the opposite party No. 1 – Sh. S.K. Batra, so-called Manager of Sidcul, Haridwar, who introduced himself as the Manager of Sidcul, Haridwar and stated that they are developing a residential colony and told that the value of the land is Rs. 1,100/- per sq. ft. and that if the complainant wishes to purchase the land, he has to deposit 25% amount for booking of the land. Thereafter, after consultation with his family, the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 1 and deposited Rs. 5,50,000/- with the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 said that the receipt of the said amount would be given to the complainant, but neither any receipt was given to the complainant, nor any agreement was executed between the parties. Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar and prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/-. Along with the consumer complaint, the complainant also moved an application for ad-interim injunction.
3. The revisionist filed objections against the application for ad-interim injunction moved by the complainant and stated that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'; that the consumer complaint is not maintainable and that the consumer complaint is based on false facts.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.04.2013, restrained the revisionist from entering into agreement with any person in regard to the land and property situated at Antriksh NRI City, Haridwar and also from selling the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has filed this revision petition.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and respondent No. 3 and perused the record.
6. This Commission passed an order on 11.11.2013 that in case the respondent No. 1 – complainant does not appear on the next date fixed, the matter shall be proceeded in accordance with law and 21.01.2014 was fixed for hearing. On 21.01.2014, none turned up on behalf of respondent No. 1 – complainant and also on behalf of respondent No. 2 – Sh. S.K. Batra and, thus, we heard learned counsel for the revisionist and respondent No. 3 – Sidcul. 7. At the outset, it need to be stated that the respondent No. 3 – Sidcul has moved an application dated 31.05.2013 (Paper No. 80) for impleading them as party in the case. Along with the said application, they have filed an affidavit dated 31.05.2013 of Sh. N.K. Koranga, Deputy General Manager, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar (Paper Nos. 80/1 to 81), wherein in para 3, he has specifically averred that no person with the name of Sh. S.K. Batra has ever been employed with Sidcul, Haridwar. Sh. S.K. Batra, so-called Manager of Sidcul, Haridwar neither turned up before the District Forum, nor appeared before the District Forum and the notice sent to him on the address given by the complainant in the consumer complaint, was received unserved, with the endorsement that on the address given over the envelope, no person with the said name is employed.
8. The complainant has alleged that he had paid sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to Sh. S.K. Batra for purchase of the land. It need to be mentioned here that the complainant has not filed any receipt in this regard showing that he has paid sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to Sh. S.K. Batra in regard to the proposed purchase of the land. No copy of any agreement has also been placed on record. A perusal of the consumer complaint also shows that no description of the proposed land has been given and its area and measurements have also not been given by the complainant. Without the area and description of the proposed land, it is not understood as to how the said land can be identified.
9. This apart, the nature of the dispute raised by the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer dispute', as the complainant has not filed any evidence to show that he has hired the services of the revisionist in any manner or has paid any amount or charges to the revisionist for the services rendered by them to the complainant. The complainant can also not be said to be the 'consumer', as he has not paid any consideration to the revisionist for the services to be rendered by them and has also not availed any services from the revisionist. Thus, the consumer complain
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and the District Forum fell in error in entertaining the same. The District Forum has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has erred in passing the impugned order, which is bad in the eyes of law and can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, revision petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 17.04.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 105 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs.