The forum directed the UT Administration to pay an interest of 8 per cent on Rs 2 lakh calculated from October 23, 2008, till the amount was actually paid back to the complainant.
Legal eagles say it is for the first time that such an order has been issued against the UT Administration.
Complainant Sanjay Goel had approached the consumer forum after the UT Administration had turned down his request for refund of earnest money which he had earlier submitted.
Goel, in his complaint to the forum, said: “I had deposited Rs 2 lakh with the UT Administration to participate in the auction at the Majlis Hall of Hotel Shivalikview in 2008 which the Estate Office had orgnised to sell off residential and commercial sites.” Goel said the Administration had announced the auction of corner booth 180 in Sector 36 of size 20’-7.5” x 29’-7.5” for a reserve price of Rs 97 lakh. He had offered up to Rs 1.15 crore for it,but withdrawn from the bid upon learning that the dimensions of the booth included the space in front of the shop as well as the public corridor on either side to which he wouldn’t have any claim. The UT Administration had not disclosed this clause before the action.
The actual area of the booth was 9’0” x 29’-7.5”. Alleging foul play, Goel had lodged a protest with the auctioneer before the fall of the hammer and withdrawn from the bid.
Denying his allegations, the UT Administration and Estate Office said the dimension of each site had been pre-announced to the public for their knowledge and information and the plan for each site clearly stated the dimensions of every booth.
The plan for every site, including booth 180 in Sector 36-D, had been displayed at the auction, pleaded the Administration.
The UT justified its act of turning down Goel’s request for refund of earnest money on the ground that he had refused to sign the bid sheet and left the spot without depositing the earnest money of 25 per cent of the premium. “In accordance with rules, the earnest money of Rs 2 lakh was forfeited,” claimed the UT Administration.
Forum president Jagroop Singh Mahal observed:“The Administration and Estate Office are both guilty of adopting unfair trade practice, concealing material information and cheating their customers.” The order further read: “The Administration and Estate Office are cheating the public in many ways by not showing that the verandah has been sold to the complainant and they have charged him the price for it.
Secondly,the complainant would be required to spend money on constructing the verandah and later precluded unfairly from using it exclusively.”
Leave a Reply