Sada Nand, Member:
1. The complainant purchased site No. 54-55, Sector 34, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- in an auction and letter of allotment was issued to him on 25.4.90. The site was advertised in the news media as fully developed site i.e. roads, pavements, footpath, swerage line, water line etc have been fully laid. According to the complainant the borrowed money from the Bank and constructed the building over the said site and since the site has not been developed he is suffering a loss of Rs. 1 lac per month since February, 1992 and that till the date of filing this complaint he has been deprived of Rs. 7 lac as compensation upto July 1992 and has further asserted that he should be compensated @ Rs. 1 lac per month till the date the site is fully developed.
2. In reply to the said complaint, the respondent has asserted that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits it has been asserted that no assurance was given to the complainant individually and the complainant has raised the construction as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. According to the allotment letter the complainant was required to make the payment of the balance price of plot in three annual equated instalments and the complainant did not pay any amount of the respondent after paying 25% of the bid money. The plot was purchased by him on 25.2.90 and he had so far paid a sum of Rs. 16,75,000/- and a balance of Rs. 48,75,000/- together with interest is still outstanding against the complainant who has been evading the payment on one pretext or the other; the other purchasers in the same vicinity/locality have also raised the consecution on their plots but they have not raised any such objection.
3. The complainant has brought on record certain photographs around the site which indicate wild bushes on the land around the building. There is nothing on record to show that the drainage, roads, footpath, waterlines, sewerage line have not been laid in this area.
4. It shall be useful to refer to paras 6 and 7 of the reply from the affidavit of Sh. R.S. Doon, Assistant Estate Officer dated 21.7.94 which are as under:
"6. That the most of the amenities have already been provided. It is further stated that the complainant is taking the frivolous grounds to delay the payment of instalments.
7. That the averments of the complainant is wrong and denied. It is further stated that the complainant has already been provided the basic amenities. However, overall the development in area is in progress. Regarding the loss as alleged in this para, the complainant is misleading this Hon'ble Forum as the building has already been rented out to the Directorate, Cultural Affairs, Archeology, Museum and Archieves, Punjab."
5. After perusal and hearing the arguments on behalf of both the parties we find that there is nothing on record to justify that there is no approach to the building in question nor it has been established that water, electricity, sewerage or drainage have not been provided in the area. In fact it was contended by the learned District Attorney that the building had been under occupation of a Government department which fact was not controverted by or on behalf of the complainant. Mere presence of bushes around the building the removal of which should normally be responsibility of the inhabitants of the building did not create a cause of action here. It did not entitle the complainant to withhold 75% of the price of the plot for want of alleged amenities and it did not give rise to a consumer dispute. In view of the above we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and it is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The complainant may seek any other remedy which he deems appropriate.
6. Announced. The order be communicated to the parties free of costs.