Haryana

StateCommission

CC/395/2017

KASTURI LAL VAJINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

YOGENDRA VERMA

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.395 of  2017

Date of the Institution:23.06.2017

Date of Decision: 31.01.2019

 

M/s Kasturi Lal Vajinder Kumar and Kanta Rani w/o Sh. Sh.Vajinder Kumar through its  authorized person, Rajan Goyal authorized vide special power of attorney dated 14.06.2017 & 21.6.2017 R/o GH-4A, Flat No.4604, Sector-20, Panchkula.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Mandi Bhawan, C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Chief Administrator.

2.      Market Committee, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Secretary-cum-EO.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Yogender Verma,  Advocate for complainant.

Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present appeal are that  complaint was filed by authorized person Sh.Rajan Goyal, authorised vide special power of Attorney dated  14.06.2017 and 21.06.2017 issued by M/s Kasturi Lal Vajinder Kumar. The complainant applied for shop by depositing Rs.3,75,400/- vide application No.498 for the purpose of earning their livelihood.   Vide letter No.1220 dated 19.11.2008 the Ops have confirmed allotment on the application and asked us to deposit 15% more amount i.e. Rs.5,65,000/-, which was deposited by the complainant vide draft dated 03.12.2008 . The tentative sale price of the shop was Rs.37,62,600/- vide allotment letter No.440 dated 16.05.2009.  The offer of possession has been given to the complainant after completion of payment i.e. 25%.  There was no sign of construction on the site, he met the official of Ops, but, they told him that approval would soon be taken and construction will start soon.  The site plan has approved on 30.09.2011.  After passing more than 8 years, OP has issued a letter of offer of possession  vide No.442 dated 02.04.2016. The area of the shop was reduced from 537 sq. ft. to 480.833 sq. ft. He deposited Rs.7,00,000/- as a installment vide receipt of book No.32 dated 18.04.2016.  In total, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.16,40,400/-. The OP intimated him that location of the numbers of the shops of Agro Mall has been changed as the site plan has been revised and as per the new site plan the shop in question was placed/earmarked in the last row of the back  of the said Agro Mall.  The schedule time for completion of work was upto 28.03.2013, i.e. within 18 months of the approval but till date, the Ops have not delivered the possession of the complainant.  He served a legal notice upon the OP on 04.02.2017.   Thus there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that this  special power of attorney were registered by notary and not registered in office of Registrar. The possession of the site was offered to the complainant vide letter No.442  on 02.04.2016.  Till date the complainant has deposited only Rs.16,40,400/-, whereas the tentative sale price was Rs.27,62,400/-.  Allotment letter No.440 dated 16.05.2009 clearly mentioned that the possession of the shop to successful applicant shall be given on the completion of the construction activities.  the location of the shop has been changed and adjusted in shop No.85 as per the note 1 of the brochure of Agro Mall. The possession of the site was offered to the complainant on 02.04.2016 and 02.11.2016 vide letter No.442 and 2392. Thus there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps.  Preliminary objections about concealment of material facts, maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, locus standi, estoppal etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA is that of Mr. Rajan Goyal vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-27 and closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr.Vishal Garg Secretary-Cum-EO, Market Committee, Panchkula and closed its evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Yogender Verma, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Sikander Bakshi, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire record including voluminous 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.                It is not disputed that complainant booked a shop in an air conditioner four Storeyed Agro Mall in Sector 20, Panchkula in the year 2008.  It is also not disputed that the sale price of the shop was Rs.3762600/- and complainant paid Rs.16,40,400/-. It is not disputed that the area is decreased from 537 sq. ft. to 480.833 sq. ft.  It is also not disputed that the new site plan was approved after a period of eight years. 

7.                Apart from this, at the outset, it is equally important to make a reference here that if at all, the construction started raising by the board, but, the location or the description of the property of Agro Mall has been changed on number of occasions, it appears that the sanctioned site plan has not been properly approved by the competent authorities.  It is the version of the complainant that two occasions the site of shop No.2 has been changed by the O.ps.  As far as the allotment of the shop is concerned, it is not in dispute and initially the complainant had paid 10% of the total cost.  Lateron, the demand raised by the O.Ps, the remaining 15% had also been paid by the complainant.  As per the terms and conditions, the possession of the shop in question was to be delivered on or before 2009, but, it was in the year 2016 while writing a letter Ex.C-9 dated 02.04.2016, the possession of the shop was offered.  There are three letters placed on the record and tendered in evidence Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 which are addressed to the Chief Administrator HSAMB, The Secretary and the Chief Minister of the State that there are certain shops of which the keys have been delivered to the allottees, but, in the present case inspite of the fact that possession has been offered, but, the keys have not been delivered to the complainant.

8.                It is not out of place make a reference here that since certain terms and conditions regarding raising the construction or the possession and re-scheduling of the installments were not clear to the allottees. The information was obtained under Right to Information Act  and as per  the information  furnished Ex.C-19, in the minutes itself, it has been recorded that the construction of Mall had to be completed by April 2009, but, it was finalized only in the month of December 2015 and thereafter, keeping in view the difficulties, it was decided by the competent authorities to re-sehedule the payment of the installments and since there is inordinate delay in making the payment of more than seven years, the allottees or a person who is invested his money for earning his livelihood cannot wait for such a long period.  Since the terms and conditions of delivery of possession, raising the construction for completion of the project had not been complied with in latter and spirit.  There is no legal impediment not to accept the complaint. 

9.                Hence with the above observation and discussion there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.Ps. are directed to refund of the amount of Rs.16,40,400/- alongwith interest @ 12%  per annum from the date of respective deposits and till realization.   In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  three months, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 18% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainant is also entitled of Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation of mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.21,000/-  as litigation charges.    It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

 

January    31th, 2019                                     Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.