Haryana

StateCommission

CC/405/2018

NAND KISHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         Complaint No.405 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 23.05.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 14.12.2018

 

Nand Kishore s/o Sh. Sh.Net Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Pillukhera Mandi, Distt. Jind.

…..Complainant

Versus

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

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

                   …..Opposite parties

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                              Mrs. Manjula, Member

Present:              Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that he applied for shop on free hold basis for earning his livelihood  in Four Storied Agro Mall with Two tier basement, parking in Sector-20, Panchkula, as per applications invited by the opposite parties (O.ps.). He deposited 30,81,620/- as 25% of total price of the shop i.e. Rs.1,23,26,563/- alongwith the application.  He was allotted shop No.87 vide letter No.702 dated 22.06.2009.  The 75% of the tentative amount was to be paid in six half yearly installments alongwith interest @ 15%.  He had already deposited Rs.61,63,268/-.  More than six years have passed but physical possession was not delivered.  He filed CWP No.13306 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.08.2012, the order reveals that the construction work had been allotted to M/s S.G. Constructions on 29.03.2012.  The complainant against requested for possession of the shop, but, but, the physical possession was not delivered.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P.-Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and anr. by filing a written version, in which, O.P. stated that   as per clause No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the shop would be offered after construction of Agro Mall and no specific time was given to handover the possession of the shop.  The construction agreement with M/s Single construction company  was terminated and thereafter M/s Inner Value Chandigarh was engaged and the work was allotted to M/s S.G. Constructions on 29.03.2012.  There was no statutory period to handover the possession of the shop as per the allotment letter.   The complainant had applied for allotment of shop for doing business for commercial purpose and earning profit.  The complainant has not deposited  the balance four installments and as per clause No.5 and 14 of the allotment letter, the allotment of shop can be cancelled and an amount equivalent to 10% of the total cost of shop can be forfeited alongwith interest and other dues.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.  Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint, territorial jurisdiction, commercial 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 vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 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. Dharmender Pal representative of Secretary-cum-E.O.Market Committee and also tendered documents Ex.R-1  to R-5 and closed its evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Ashish Gupta, the learned counsel for the complainant 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 prosecution of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another, the complainant had submitted an application 15.05.2008 and the payment was made and since in the draw, the complainant was one of the successful drawee and  25% of the amount as being earnest amount was deposited by the complainant. The shop No.87 was allotted in the year 2009, thereafter, few installments were paid by the complainant, but, however, the possession as per the brochure has not been delivered to the complainant.  It was specifically mentioned in proceedings of meeting dated 25.03.2016 that Agro Mall was to be completed by month of April 2009,  however its completion was finalized in December, 2015.   The appropriate steps should be taken by the O.ps. to complete the construction of the mall but still it has not been made.   Even as per the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board policy for curtailing the litigation, it was decided that the case should be expeditiously disposed of but neither the possession has been delivered nor the payment has been refunded to the complainant, as such, in the constraint circumstances, the complainant had sought the refund of the amount.

7.                Contrary to it, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that all the appropriate steps have been taken by the O.ps. to complete the construction of Agro Mall in the area of Panchkula and very shortly, the construction is to be completed. The possession was allotted and the shop will be delivered to the complainant.

8.      However, since the actual status of the construction is not available and there is a inordinate delay in handing over the physical possession to the complainant and in fact another matter was decided by this commission in F.A. No.1130 of 2015 titled as Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board Vs. Barumal decided on 21.04.2016 and appeal was also preferred before the Hon’ble National Commission and the judgment has attained the finality. Another judgement was passed by this Commission in C.C. No.356 of 2016 titled as Kiran Mann Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board decided on 21.02.2018, which was also allowed, as such, in these circumstances, it is a fit case of the complainant to get the deposited amount alongwith interest.

9.                As a result thereof, the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed.  When the project is not complete as such, this court is of the considered opinion that the complainant is well within her legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.61,63,268/- which he had already deposited with the O.ps.  Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and the possession has not been delivered within its permissible period and under the constraint circumstances, the complainant had to knock the door of this court even for seeking refund of the amount.  In such like cases  the court had to deal with the O.Ps. with severe hands who are delaying the projects and misusing the funds of the investors and 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.61,63,268/- 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  two 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. 

December    14th, 2018                     Mrs.Manjula               Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                    Member                      Judicial Member                                                                               Addl. Bench             Addl.Bench               

S.K.