Haryana

StateCommission

CC/97/2017

ANKUR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN GUPTA

05 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint Case No.97 of  2017

Date of the Institution:22.02.2017

Date of Decision: 05.07.2019

 

1.      Sh.Ankur Gupta, S/o Sh.Naresh Gupta C-89, Old DLF Colony, Sector-14, Gurgaon.

2.      Mrs. Vibha Gupta, w/o Sh. Sh.Naresh Gupta, C-89, Old DLF Colony, Sector-14, Gurgaon.

                                                                             .….Complainants

Versus

1.      Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (HSAMB),  (through its Chief Administrator) Mandi Bhawan, C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.      Market Committee (Through its EO Cum Secretary), Sector-20, Panchkula.

          .….Opposite parties

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Parveen Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

                   Mrs.B.S.Negi,  Advocate for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

Ram Singh Chaudhary, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the booking of the shop was commenced from 15.05.2008 and closed on 16.06.2008. They deposited 10% of the total amount of Rs.6,96,400/- with application on 01.04.2008.  On the basis of draw, allotment of a  shop in Agro Mall Sector 20 Panchkula has been made.  Accordingly, they deposited another 15% of the amount i.e. Rs.9,80,800/- with the O.Ps.  With this, the total amount deposited was 25% of the total cost  i,e Rs. 16,77,200/- . Shop No.1  has been allotted in the name of Mr. Ankur Gupta.  As per allotment letter, the total cost of the shop was Rs.67,07,478/- and against this,  an amount of Rs.16,72,200/- has already been received by the OP and remaining 75% amount was to be paid on either without interest within 60 days of the allotment or to be paid in six yearly installments with 15% interest.    Despite several requests, the O.Ps. did not start the construction at site due to non-finalization of drawings, as admitted vide letter dated 12.09.2011 (Ex. C-5). The construction of Agro Mall has been stopped in February 2010. Subsequently, the O.Ps. vide letter dated 10.01.2013 (Ex. C-6)   have intimated that the instalments have been rescheduled from 15.11.2009 to 15.11.2011 . Accordingly, the complainants  had paid three instalments amounting to  Rs.25,15,140/- on 08.04.2013.  The complainants requested the Ops to hand over the possession of the shop, but, to no avail.  They requested the O.Ps to pay interest on the deposited amount, but, to no avail.  Finally, Mr. N.K.Gupta father of the complainant attended the redressal committee meeting of the Op’s and it was intimated vide letter 20.05.2016 (Ex. C-11) that  it has been decided by the Board in its meeting held on 09.3.2016 that interest @ 9% p.a. would be paid to those who have paid the instalments by considering the date of allotment as   01.03.2016 .The OP. offered the possession of the shop No.1 on 05.04.2016 and after taking over the possession, the complainants come to know that basic amenities were still missing. They wrote a letter dated 09.10.2017 to the O.Ps. asking for the information about change in the FAR , about basic missing amenities like  power back up, maintenance services, PA and music system, earmarked parking space for visitors and for occupants of the shops, ATM, food court etc on roof top, 24 hours security, Wi Fi connectivity have not been provided.  They booked the shop for the purpose of earning their  livelihood by means of self employment and not for the purpose of letting it out.  Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  The OP vide letter  dated  02.11.2017 (Ex. C-16) obtained under RTI , has intimated that the FAR has been change from 1.48:1 to 1.55:1. The complainants also alleged that because of the change of the FAR from 1.48:1 to 1.55:1, the carpet area of the shops still is 1234.71 sq. ft but the total cost of the shop has increased from Rs. 73,09,483/- to Rs. 76,60,140/- and this has resulted in paying extra cost of Rs. 3,50,657.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps by filing a written version, in which O.Ps. stated that the complainants have not deposited remaining three installments till date.  As per the allotment letter, the possession of the shop/office shall be offered to him after construction of Agro Mall. The rescheduled of installments has been shifted for two years and was intimated to him.  The construction of the site has been stopped due to non finalization of drawings.  As per the meeting held on 09.03.2016, the allottee who have already deposited entire or partial allotment price, they shall be granted simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited by them from the date of each deposit till 01.03.2016.  The O.Ps. further decided that decision will be got approved from the State government and the Finance Department. The matter was sent to the Government vide letter dated 08.09.2016 but the FD declined approval for the same. The matter was again discussed vide item No.14 in the 210^th meeting of HSAM Board and it was felt that there was no provision in the Act or the policy of HSAM Board permitting re-schedule of installment or revising of the date of allotment anfd also for the payment of interest for the advance intalments. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Preliminary objections about  the maintainability of complaint, suppressed true and material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, one of the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit vide which Mr.Ankur Gupta-one of the complainant has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and closed his evidence.

4.      On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainants the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr. Vishal Garg Secretary Ex.R-A and closed its evidence.

5.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Parveen Gupta, the  learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr.B.S.Negi, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      As per the admitted facts, the shop was allotted to the present complainants on 19.11.2008 and the total cost of the shop was Rs.67,07,478/-.   Since, the project has been delayed considerably by the Marketing Board, the Board of Directors had decided to postpone the payment of the installments for the relevant period and the payment of the installments  were re-scheduled from 15.11.2009 to 15.11.2011 and finally re-scheduled to 01.03.2016. to 2011.

7.      The only basic and foremost question which arises for adjudication of this Commission is as the present complainant had paid few installments during the period, when he was not supposed to make the payments of the installments as per the decision taken by the board of directors, whether the complainant is entitled to get the interest over the amount of the installments.  The question is answered in affirmative on the grounds that the complainants had made the payment of few installments during the exempted period and if the amount has been utilized by the Marketing Board, in that eventuality, the complainants are entitled to get the interest.  As per the brochure and other relevant documents prepared by the O.Ps., it was also clear that in such like eventualities, the complainants would be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum.

8.      While addressing the arguments, it has been brought into the notice of this Commission by Sh.B.S.Negi, the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the matter was referred to the Finance Department and certain objections were raised.  However, now the Government of Haryana is ceased with the matter and will decide accordingly and as per the decision of the State Government, the amount of the interest would be paid to the complainants.   As a matter of fact, even if the matter is pending with the State Government, while the complainants cannot be allowed to wait for a sufficiently long period in such like petty matters. The  Government would definitely take some time and would issue directions accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is a fit case, where the directions could be issued to accord or to make the payment of the interest over the installments, which had been paid in advance by the complainants during the exemption period.  Since there is no variation as well as the allotment of the shop is concerned, in that eventuality, the O.Ps. cannot  charge higher amount and if at all, the amount has been paid in all probabilities, the excess amount paid by the complainants is to be refunded by the O.Ps.

9.      As a consequence of the above observations, the present complaint accordingly stands allowed, the complainants would be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum on the advance payment of  three installments, which have been paid by the complainants before the rescheduling date of 01.03.2016 as it has been decided by the Board of the OP in its Board meeting held on 09.03.2016.   Further,  the original cost of the shop is Rs.73,09,483/-, whereas due to change in FAR from 1.48:1 to 1.55:1, the carpet area of the shops still is 1234.71 sq. ft  but the total cost of the shop has increased from Rs. 73,09,483/- to Rs. 76,60,140/- and this has resulted in paying extra cost of Rs. 3,50,657/-. So the excess amount of Rs.3,50,657/- is directed to be refunded to the complainants. However, if  any amount is found payable by the complainants to the O.Ps., in that eventuality, this amount is subject to adjustment, if any. The interest and the refund of the excess amount as allowed above is directed to be paid within stipulated period of three months and in case of non-compliance, the complainants are further entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum from the defaulting period. The complainants are also entitled of Rs.50,000/- for compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. In addition, the complainants are also entitled of Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act would also be attractable.

 

July    05th, 2019                   Manjula                      Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                    Member                      Judicial Member                                                                               Addl. Bench               Addl.Bench               

s.K.