| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1114491 |
| Court | Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna |
| Decided On | Nov-30-1992 |
| Case Number | Appeal No. 75 of 1991 |
| Judge | B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER |
| Appellant | Manoj Sharma |
| Respondent | Zila Parishad |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]consumer protection act, 1986 - section 14 - cases referred: 1991 (1) cpj 1 (nc). 1991 (1) cpj 182 (nc). 1991 (1) cpj 258 (nc). 1991 (1) cpj 550. 1992 (1) cpj 148 (nc)=1991 con.c 266. comparative citation: 1992 (2) cpj 1023Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]b.n. sinha, president: 1. this appeal is directed against order dated 20th july, 1991 passed by the district forum, jehanabad in complaint case no. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party). 2. the relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. the opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official salami for the shop was. rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
B.N. Sinha, President:
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Appeal dismissed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manoj Sharma Vs Zila Parishad - Citation 1114491 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114491', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 75 of 1991 ', 'appellant' => 'Manoj Sharma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manoj Sharma Vs. Zila Parishad', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 -<br/> <br/> Cases Referred:<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 1 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 182 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 258 (NC).<br/> 1991 (1) CPJ 550.<br/> 1992 (1) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266.<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1992 (2) CPJ 1023', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1992-11-30', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & K.P. SINHA, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).</p><p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.</p><p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.</p><p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.</p><p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.</p><p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.</p><p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.</p><p> Appeal dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Zila Parishad', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114491', (int) 1 => 'manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1114491/manoj-sharma-vs-zila-parishad' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.N. Sinha, President:<p> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20th July, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 50 of 91 in which the appellant was the complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) and respondent was the opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party).', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The opposite party invited offers for settlement of shops of various dimensions through bid with the condition that Rs. 200/- was to be deposited for taking part in bid and that the minimum official Salami for the shop was. Rs. 60,000/-and the monthly rental for a shop having a carpet area of 20 x 20 was Rs. 1,000/- and that the shop will be let out to the highest bider provided he deposited the 10% of the bid amount immediately and deposited the remaining amount within 15 days (vide Annexure-I to the Memo of Appeal). The complainant deposit d Rs. 200/- for taking part in the bid held on 25.1.91 and he offered the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- and as per the terms and conditions he deposited Rs. 7,600/- as ten percent of that amount. The complainant did not deposit the remaining amount as he learnt subsequently that demand of Salami was contrary to the provisions of law. The O.P. asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within three days, through a notice dated 4th March, 1991 (Annexure to the Memo of appeal) and informing the complainant that if he will not deposit the said amount within three days, the settlement made in his favour would be cancelled. The complainant therefore filed this case before the District Forum. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, the O.P. canceled the settlement of that shop with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, sought for before the District Forum the relief that the demand of Salami by the opposite party be declared illegal and the advance deposited by the complainant be refunded to him with interest of @ 18% per annum thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/-as the monthly rental of the shop and for direction to the opposite party to deliver the shop to the complainant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. The District Forum found that the relief sought by the complainant are not covered by Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the âAct) and, therefore, the complainant were not entitled to those reliefs. However, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,600/-, the amount deposited by the complainant without further loss of time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the District Forum and submitted that the relief sought for by the complainant could be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). The Karnataka State Electricity Board and Another y. Escon Private Limited and Another, I (1991) CPJ 182 (NC) and 3. Suman Chandra Jain v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, I (1991) CPJ 258 (NC) and of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in General Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works and Another, I (1991) CPJ 550. At the very outset we would like to mention that none of these cases are of any help to the complainant-appellant. The facts of these cases were quite different.', (int) 4 => '<p> 5. In the present case the complainant had taken part in the bid and offered the highest bid for the shop and deposited the 10% amount thereof and thereafter failed to deposit the remaining amount within the period fixed for by the O.P. and hence the settlement of the shop in his favour was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the District Forum for a declaration that demand of Salami is contrary to law, for refund of the amount deposited by him with 18% interest thereon after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as the rental for the shop for a month and for delivery of possession of the shop to him. None of these reliefs can be granted under any of the four clauses of Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in A.P. State Elect. Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 CON.C 266, that the Consumer Court can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under the 4 Clauses of Sub-section 1 of Sec. 14 of the Act. As none of the reliefs sought for the complainant are in keeping with those four clauses, the District Forum has rightly refused to grant any of those reliefs to the complainant.', (int) 5 => '<p> 6. Before we conclude, we would like to mention that the complainant filed the case with regard to the settlement of shop, which is invariably used for commercial purposes. Hence the case was not maintainable under the Act. Since the respondent has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order so far it relates to the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.', (int) 6 => '<p> 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.', (int) 7 => '<p> Appeal dismissed.', (int) 8 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109