Haryana

StateCommission

CC/356/2016

KIRAN MANN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

PARDEEP SOLATH

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.356 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 22.11.2016         Date of Decision: 21.02.2018

 

Kiran Mann W/o Sh.Gurbrinder Singh Mann, R/o H.No.161, Sector-12, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

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

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

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

As per complainant she booked a space at Agro Mall on 15.05.2008 sponsored by opposite parties (O.Ps.). She was allotted space measuring 871 sq. feet at third floor and  approximate cost of that space was Rs.34,84,000/-.  O.ps. promised to deliver possession by the month of April 2009.  She has already deposited Rs.29,01,553/-, but, possession is not offered as yet. So O.Ps. be directed to refund the amount alongwith interest @19% from the date of payment besides compensation as prayed for.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by O.Ps. that in allotment letter dated 18.06.2009 no time period was specified qua possession. Agro Mall could not be completed in time because the contractors left the work in between.   As per terms and conditions complainant was asked to pay more amount because area of unit was increased, as mentioned in the letter sent to her. Objections about locus standi, concealment of true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      It is not disputed that complainant has already deposited Rs.29,01,553/- and possession is not offered.  If specific time was not mentioned in allotment letter dated 18.06.2009 Ex.C-5 it does not mean that O.ps. never set the time to deliver possession.  It is specifically mentioned in proceedings of meeting dated 25.03.2016 Ex.C-9 that Agro Mall was to be completed by month of April 2009.  It is admission by O.Ps. and they cannot wriggle  out of the same.  It is no-where alleged that contents of this meeting were wrong.  It shows that O.Ps. did not complete Agro Mall within the prescribed time.  So, complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by her, for a space to earn livelihood by way of self-employment, which is specifically stated by her in cross-examination.

5.      As a sequel to above discussion, complaint is allowed and O.Ps. are directed to refund the amount deposited by her alongwith interest @ 07% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.  Complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.21,000/- for mental agony and harassment etc. besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

 

February 21st, 2018

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.