BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.67 of 2019.
Date of institution: 11.03.2019.
Date of decision:18.02.2020.
Ramphal Singh S/o Sh. Kundan Lal, aged 60 years, R/o V & P.O. Khurana, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal presently residing at Shop No.78B, New Grain Market, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board through its Chairman/Administrator, MC, Kaithal, New Grain Market.
- Market Committee Kaithal through its Secretary/E.O., MC, New Grain Market, Kaithal.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Jitender Malik, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Surender Gorsi, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that vide allotment letter dt. 20.08.2018 in an open auction conducted on 10.05.2018 a plot of shop No.271 was allotted to the complainant being the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.71,87,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant duly deposited the 25% of the bid amount on 11.05.2018 with the Ops. As per allotment letter dt. 20.08.2018, the complainant had to make the payment of balance amount in six installments. The complainant received a letter No.1930 dt. 19.09.2018 on 01.12.2018 through post and offered the possession of above-said plot of shop No.271. As per the terms of the allotment letter, the Ops are bound to provide minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification etc. but the Ops failed to provide the minimum basic facilities at the spot. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the work of development of roads, platforms etc. (civil works) in the Additional Grain market was completed on 28.06.2017 and the work of water & sewerage system was completed on 24.03.2017. The electricity work was allotted to M/s. R.R. Electrical Booth No.17, Sec-15, Panchkula vide office memo No.4320 dt. 26.05.2017 and the electricity wok is almost completed at the spot. There is no rule of not paying interest, penalty on default of payment of installment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also submitted written arguments.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, two points involved in this case i.e. (1) Whether the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has purchased the plot/shop in open auction for commercial purpose (2) Whether the Ops have complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter for providing the basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification etc. or not. If not provided, what is effect on merits of case.
Now we are deciding the first point. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contended that the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has purchased the plot/shop in question in an open auction as a person interested can inspect the sites offered and choose the site which he wants to acquire and participate in the auction only in regard to such site. He further contended that before bidding in the auction, the complainant knew about the existence or lack of amenities and principle of purchase as is where is basis, therefore, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the Ops as far as the grievance relates to a commercial plot purchased in a public auction. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has controverted the above-said plea of the Ops and relied upon the judgment/order dt. 01.02.2016 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as M/s. City View Enterprises Vs. HUDA & others, wherein it has been held that in case of obligation on the part of development authority to provide the specific amenities and representing that they would provide the certain amenities in the voucher or advertisement in a public auction of cite, requisition is completely different. In the present case, as per allotment letter Annexure-C1, it is clearly mentioned that the Ops are bound to offer the possession within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter provided that minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification are existing and if the said basis facilities are not existing, than after providing the said basic facilities. So, in view of the condition mentioned in the allotment letter, the Ops are bound with their terms and conditions for providing the basic amenities. Hence, the above judgment is fully applicable in the present case and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the such type of cases.
7. Now we are coming to another point whether the Ops have complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter for providing the basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification etc. or not. If not provided, what is effect on merits of case. It is not disputed that the plot in question has been taken by the complainant in an open auction conducted on 10.05.2018 vide allotment letter dt. 20.08.2018 vide which a plot of shop No.271 was allotted to the complainant being the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.71,87,000/- as per Annexure-C1. It is also not disputed that the complainant duly deposited the 25% of the bid amount on 11.05.2018 with the Ops and he had to make the payment of balance amount in six installments. The Ops also send the demand notice on 05.02.2019 as per Annexure-C3 bearing No.214 regarding deposit of first installment which was falling due on 20.02.2019 which was duly replied by the complainant on 11.02.2019 as per Annexure-C6 and he took the objection that after receiving the possession letter, he applied for new electricity connection on 27.12.2018. The UHBVN department has send the reply of the application filed by the complainant for electricity connection on 17.01.2019 and the department gave the remarks on the application that other-electrification work not completed as per Annexure-C5 and requested for providing him all the basic facilities mentioned in the allotment letter, failing which, they are not entitled for remaining sale price and interest thereon. Again the Ops send a notice bearing No.139 dt. 11.09.2019 to the complainant for resumption of plot for not paying the two successive installments i.e. amounting to Rs.13,05,967/- and due date was 20.02.2019 and Rs.12,32,497/- which was due on 20.08.2019 and complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.10.2019. The grievance of the complainant is that as per the terms of the allotment letter, the Ops are bound to provide minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification etc. but the Ops failed to provide the minimum basic facilities at the spot. Ld. Counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the law laid down in 2014(2) Apex Court Judgments page 52 (SC) titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishamber Dayal Goyal & others. The Ops have placed on record copy of letter dt. 29.03.2019 Annexure-R1 wherein they have mentioned that the work of water supply, storm water and sewerage system completed on 24.03.2017. The Ops further placed on record copy of the letter dt. 01.04.2019 Annexure-R2, vide which they have allotted the work to M/s. R.R.Electrical, Booth No.70, Sector-15, Panchkula and granted the time extension upto 15.05.2019. From perusal of both the letters, it is clear that both the letters are very contradictory. On the other hand, the complainant has also placed on record the letter issued by the UHBVN dt. 17.01.2019 Annexure-C5, wherein it is mentioned that the electricity work not completed. Meaning thereby, the Ops have not provided the basic facilities to the complainant. Even then, demarcation was given to the complainant on 15.01.2019, how it is possible that the possession will be offered without demarcation on 19.09.2018. The law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishamber Dayal Goyal & others, 2014(2) ACJ page 52, wherein it has been held that (i) Plot allotment-Statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer Forum in case of deficiency of services.
(ii) Plot allotment-Non providing of requisite facilities-Clearly establish deficiency of service-However, allottee cannot refuse to pay the instalment and thus violating the terms of allotment letter-Order of District Forum whereby it allowed 12% interest per annum on the entire deposited amount after two years from the date of issuance of allotment letter to the respondents till the development and notification of the area in question is not done-Respondents were directed to deposit the remaining balance amount-Board was directed not to levy and charge, penalty or interest on the same-Forum further directed the appellants to develop the area within a month-No interference in order of District Forum as upheld by State Commission and National Commission.
In the present case, the inaction on the part of the Ops in providing the requisite facilities from the date of offer of possession i.e. 19.09.2018, they have not completed the basic amenities as mentioned above which clearly establishes deficiency in service on the part of Ops. So, the said letter of offer of possession is a merely paper transaction because the same has been issued to the complainant without providing the basic amenities and the same is hereby quashed.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we are of the view that the Ops have used the hard money of complainant because the Ops failed to complete the development work and due to non-completing of the development works, complainant could not raise the construction and he was deprived to do the business without providing the basic amenities and he has suffered the loss. In such a scenario, the Ops as service provider is obligated to facilitate the utilization and enjoyment of the plots as intended by the allottee and set out in the allotment letter. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is liable to be accepted with costs and we direct the Ops to pay the interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount after the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of allotment letter i.e. 20.08.2018 till the date of fresh offer of possession after completion of basic amenities. It is made clear that the complainant will deposit the remaining balance amount without levying any charge/penalty or interest on the same and the Ops are further directed to develop the area within one month after receiving the copy of this order and they are also directed to issue the fresh offer of possession letter accordingly. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:18.02.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
