Haryana

StateCommission

A/1130/2015

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

BARUMAL - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1130 of 2015

Date of Institution:        31.12.2015

Date of Decision :         21.04.2016

 

1.     The Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.     The Secretary-cum-Executive Officer, Market Committee, Sector-20, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Barumal s/o Sh. Janki Dass, Resident of House No.44, Village and Post Office, Pillukhera Mandi, District Jind.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Divaya Sarup, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Opposite Parties’ is directed against the order dated October 28^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Barumal-Complainant/respondent, was allowed directing the appellants to pay Rs.16,00,402/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit; Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Barumal-complainant (respondent herein) applied for allotment of shop/office space, on free hold basis in Agro Mall, NVM, Sector-20, Panchkula, which was set up by The Market Committee, Panchkula-Opposite Parties/appellants. The price of the shop was Rs.32,00,750/-. He deposited 8,00,188/-, that is, 25% at the time of application. The respondent was successful in draw of lots. The respondent was allotted shop No.24 vide allotment letter dated May 16^th, 2009 (Annexure C-1). As per terms of the allotment letter, the respondent deposited further instalments amounting to Rs.16,00,402/-. The appellants being unable to raise construction, the respondent sought refund of the amount but the amount was not paid. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties/appellants, contested the complaint primarily raising plea that initially the contract for construction was allotted to M/s Single Construction Company, who did not complete the construction and thereafter a new contractor was appointed who also failed to raise construction. It has been further stated that since there was no time limit prescribed, therefore, the respondent cannot seek refund of the amount.

4.      After hearing the parties, allowed the complaint directing the appellants as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      The appellants have assailed the order of the District Forum only on the ground that since there was no time limit prescribed for raising construction, the appellants cannot be held deficient in service.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. Even if there is no time limit to raise construction, still there must be some reasonable time. The respondent had applied for allotment of shop/office space on free hold basis and remained successful in draw of lots held on November 7^th, 2008. He was allotted shop No.24 vide allotment letter dated May 16^th, 2009 (Annexure C-1). Thus, even after the expiry of more than seven years, the appellants have not been able to complete the construction. It cannot be left for indefinite time to complete the construction. 

7.      In view of the above, the appellants have rightly been held deficient in service. No case for interference is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 21.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL