Haryana

Kaithal

232/20

Sunita Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashwani Kumar Goel

15 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           232 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:             04.08.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:       15.02.2024.

 

Sunita Singla w/o Shri Devender Singla s/o Shri Jasrat Mal, r/o H.No.138/14, Govind Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, through its Secretary/Chair Person, Plot No.C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB), Kaithal, through its Chair Person/Secretary.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Ashwani Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Surender Gorsi, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that the OPs had carved out an additional New Grain Market at Jind Road, Kaithal and the plots were offered there to the interested persons in an e-auction held on 10.05.2018. She was the successful bidder of the plot bearing No.273 having an area of 1000 sq. ft. in the said market for a sum of Rs.71,47,000/- in that e-auction and she deposited 25% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs.17,86,750/- within two days. That on 20.08.2018, an allotment letter was issued by OPs through its Chairman depicting the conditions of allotment and schedule for payment of balance price of Rs.53,60,250/- in 6 installments along with interest @15% per annum. That as per terms of allotment letter, the possession was to be given to her within 30 days of the allotment by providing minimum Basic facilities, such as, electricity, water supply and Sewage connection etc. In case, minimum basic facilities do not exist at the spot, the possession was to be given after the availability of the minimum basic facilities at the spot. That on 19.09.2018, she was offered the possession vide letter bearing Reference No.1934 and accordingly, the possession was delivered to her by OPs. That she made the payment of the due installments as per schedule provided in the allotment letter dated 20.08.2018 and till date, she had made total Rs.57,74,280/-. That in the month of March 2019, she in order to earn her livelihood, decided to construct the shop on the said allotted plot and on 11.03.2019, applied for new electricity connection online with UHBVN, which was rejected on 15.03.2019 with remarks “electrification work not completed”. After that, she made several requests to the OPs to provide the minimum basic amenities, but all in vain. On 21.08.2019, she wrote letter to the grievance cell of HSAMB through email but of no use. The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, she suffered physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining her, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, admitting about allotment of shop in New Grain Market, Kaithal to the complainant. It is further submitted that all the minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification are completed. The work of roads, platform etc. (Civil Works) were completed on 28.06.2017 and works of water supply, storm water and sewerage system were completed on 24.03.2017. The electricity works in all respect were completed on 12.10.2019. That approximately 18 shops have already been constructed, the completion certificates to these shops have already been issued. New Grain Market is in working condition from 2017. That this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred under Section 42 of HAPM Act, 1961. The complainant may avail statutory remedy to file an appeal as provided under Section 40 of HAPM Act, 1961. Thus, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure C-14.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-28.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs had carved out an additional New Grain Market at Jind Road, Kaithal and the plots were offered there to the interested persons in an e-auction held on 10.05.2018. He further argued that the complainant was the successful bidder of the plot bearing No.273 having an area of 1000 sq. ft. in the said market for a sum of Rs.71,47,000/- in that e-auction and she deposited 25% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs.17,86,750/- within two days. He further argued that on 20.08.2018, an allotment letter was issued by OPs through its Chairman depicting the conditions of allotment and schedule for payment of balance price of Rs.53,60,250/- in 6 installments along with interest @15% per annum. He further argued that as per terms of allotment letter, the possession was to be given to the complainant within 30 days of the allotment by providing minimum Basic facilities, such as, electricity, water supply and Sewage connection etc. He further argued that in case, minimum basic facilities do not exist at the spot, the possession was to be given after the availability of the minimum basic facilities at the spot. He further argued that on 19.09.2018, the complainant was offered the possession, vide letter bearing Reference No.1934 and accordingly, the possession was delivered to the complainant by OPs. He further argued that the complainant made the payment of the due installments as per schedule provided in the allotment letter dated 20.08.2018 and till date, she had made total Rs.57,74,280/-. He further argued that in the month of March 2019, the complainant, in order to earn her livelihood, decided to construct the shop on the said allotted plot and on 11.03.2019, applied for new electricity connection online with UHBVN, which was rejected on 15.03.2019 with remarks “electrification work not completed”. He further argued that after that, the complainant made several requests to the OPs to provide the minimum basic amenities, but all in vain. He further argued that on 21.08.2019, the complainant wrote letter to the grievance cell of HSAMB through email but of no use. He further argued that the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has admitted about allotment of shop in New Grain Market, Kaithal to the complainant. He further argued that all the minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification are completed. He further argued that the work of roads, platform etc. (Civil Works) were completed on 28.06.2017 and works of water supply, storm water and sewerage system were completed on 24.03.2017. He further argued that the electricity works in all respect were completed on 12.10.2019. He further argued that approximately 18 shops have already been constructed, the completion certificates to these shops have already been issued. New Grain Market is in working condition from 2017. He further argued that that this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. He further argued that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred under Section 42 of HAPM Act, 1961. He further argued that the complainant may avail statutory remedy to file an appeal as provided under Section 40 of HAPM Act, 1961. Thus, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors. etc. Vs. M/s Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. etc., Civil Appeal No.1342 of 2006 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.12794/2001) dated of decision 28.02.2006 and U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1994 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No.1995 of 2006 dated of decision 17.03.2009.

9.                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 the case.   

10.              Now coming to the first point. Learned counsel for the OPs has 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, by the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above-said plea of the OPs and in this regard, he relied upon the judgment/order dated 01.02.2016, passed by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled 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, in Allotment Letter Annexure-C1, it is clearly mentioned that the OPs are bound to offer the possession of plot/shop, within 30 days, from the date of issue of that Allotment Letter, provided that minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification are existing and if the said basic facilities are not existing, then after providing the said basic facilities. So, in view of the condition mentioned in the Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, the OPs are bound with their terms & conditions for providing the basic amenities.  Hence, the above judgment is fully applicable in the present case and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain such type of cases.

11.              Now we are coming to another point that whether the OPs have complied with the terms and conditions of the Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, 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 dated 20.08.2018, vide which, a shop No.273 was allotted to the complainant, being the successful bidder, for a sum of Rs.71,47,000/-. It is also not disputed that the complainant duly deposited 25% of the bid cost with the OPs and she had to make the payment of balance amount in six installments. The OPs also send the demand notice on 05.02.2019 bearing No.216 Annexure-C3 regarding deposit of due installment, which was falling due on 20.02.2019, which was duly replied by the complainant on 20.02.2019 Annexure-C11. The complainant has taken the objection that after receiving the possession letter, she applied for new electricity connection on 11.03.2019, upon which, the UHBVN department has rejected his application and gave the remarks on the application that “Other Electrification work not completed” Annexure-C9 and the complainant requested the OPs for providing her all the basic facilities, mentioned in the Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, failing which, they are not entitled for remaining sale price and interest thereon. The main grievance of the complainant is that as per the terms of the Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, the OPs are bound to provide minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification etc. but they failed to provide the minimum basic facilities at the spot. Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishamber Dayal Goyal & others, 2014(2) Apex Court Judgments page 52 (SC). The OPs have placed on record copy of letter dated 29.03.2019 Annexure-R1, wherein, they have mentioned that the work of development of Roads, Platform etc. (Civil Works) in Extension Grain Market at Kaithal at Patti Choudhary completed on 28.06.2017 and work of water supply, storm water and sewerage system completed on 24.03.2017. The OPs further placed on record copy of the letter dated 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 Annexure R-1 & R-2, 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 Annexure-C9, wherein, it is mentioned that Other Electrification work not done. 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 case 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.

12.              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 Annexure C-2, 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 Annexure C-2, is merely a paper transaction, because the same has been issued, to the complainant, without providing the basic amenities. However, it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has paid the entire amount as per Allotment Letter Annexure C-1 regarding the shop in question, to the OPs, and produced Deposit Slips, in this regard as Mark-A and Mark-B on the case file.        

13.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered 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 she was deprived to do the business, without providing the basic amenities. The above act and conduct of OPs amount to gross deficiency in service on their part, due to which, the complainant has suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss. In such a scenario, the OPs, as a 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. Hence, the OPs are liable to pay the interest on the deposited amount by the complainant from 19.09.2018 i.e. date of offer of possession (Annexure C-2) till 12.10.2019 when as per OPs all the electric work has been completed at the site (letter Annexure R-7) along with compensation + litigation expenses, to the complainant. The case laws, produced by the OPs, are not disputed, but the same are not applicable to the case in hand, being rested on different footings.

14.              In view of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.09.2018 to 12.10.2019, on the total deposited amount, by the complainant with the OPs till 12.10.2019 along with compensation + litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @6% per annum, from the date of this order, till its realization.

15.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:15.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.