Haryana

Panchkula

CC/184/2018

NAFE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

PARVEEN NAIDU

10 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA

                                                       

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	184 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	15.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.10.2019

 

 

Nafe Singh son of Shri Randhir Singh owner of Shop No.304, New Grain  Market, Charkhi Dadri(Haryana)

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

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

2.     Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri through its Secretary-cum-E.O.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Parveen Naidu, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the plot no.304 of New Grain Market, Charkhi Dadri was allotted to the complainant vide allotment order no.758 dated 01.09.2012 by the Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri on being approved by the Marketing Board on the terms and conditions specified therein. According to Condition No.6 of the allotment order it was laid down that all payments shall be made in cash or by way of Bank Draft payable to the Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri. The complainant had completed the construction over the plot and obtained the completion certificate from Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri. He had obtained the Licence from Market Committee as commission agent for running his business in said shop no.304 of NGM. The complainant had visited office of OP No.2 in first week of January, 2018 to deposit a sum of Rs.22 Lacs against outstanding payment in respect of aforesaid shop/plot no.304 of NGM. The amount so offered in cash as per condition no.6 of the allotment order was not accepted by the Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri despite visiting Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri several times. The complainant purchased the Demand Draft no.510639 dated 02.06.2018 of Rs.22 Lacs drawn in favour of Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri and handed over to his lawyer who in turn sent the demand draft to the Chief Administrator of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula vide letter dated 04.06.2018 which was got diarized in the Marketing Board vide receipt no.6887 dated 05.06.2018. Instead of accepting the payment of Rs.22 Lacs, the OP No.1 had returned back the Demand Draft of Rs.22 Lacs vide letter No.LA-2-2018/60743 dated 05.09.2018 to the lawyer of complainant after retaining the same for three months by asserting that the balance amount of plots can be deposited on PPM on-line with super added rider that it cannot be deposited through DD/Cash. The amount had been remitted strictly as per condition no.6 laid down in the Allotment order which had neither been modified nor any kind of amendment was brought to the notice of allottee at any time either by the Marketing Board or by Market Committee. Apart from that the complainant had not been apprised about any revised mode of deposit and for non-acceptance of the amount when he had visited in Market Committee Charkhi Dadri several times. It will not be out of context to mention here that vital Public Service Undertaking and even Govt. departments where the amount is accepted on line have been accepting the payment  in cash as well as through Bank drafts  also. Reference is made about mode of payment so permitted by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam; Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran; Railway Booking; Airline Booking. Marketing Board itself is Public Sector Undertaking of Haryana Govt. and two different yard sticks cannot be applied by the PSUs. Hence refusal to accept the heavy sum of Rs.22 Lacs through demand draft was highly illegal and unwarranted. Non-acceptance of such huge amount of Rs.22 Lacs in cash when offered during January, 2018 onward and subsequently non-acceptance of the Demand Draft of Rs.22Lacs even after retaining the same for three months itself shows the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless; no cause of action; no locus standi, estoppal, come not with clean hands, suppressed  the material facts and the complaint does not fall under the definition of consumer. On merits, OPs No.1 & 2 stated that the shop no.304 of NGM Charkhi Dadri was allotted by open auction in favour of the complainant on dated 23.07.2012 in Rs.1,02,56,000. The complainant being successful bidder had deposited 25% of auction price Rs.25.64 Lacs as per condition of allotment letter. The remaining balance 75% had to be deposited in Six half yearly installments with 15% interest or at such rate of interest as may be specified by the Board from time to time. In case of failure to deposit the installments in time penal interest @4% P.A. to be compounded half yearly shall be charged in addition to the normal rate of interest as per condition no.5 of Allotment letter. The Chief Administrator, H.S.A.M Board Panchkula had approved and Administrator, Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri had issued the allotment letter no.758 dated 01.09.2012 and accordingly on 24.09.2012 demarcation was also given. Further, it is mandatory for all the departments, Board and Corporations to make their payments through RTGS instead of cheque. Therefore, as per directions of the Govt. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board adopted ICT initiatives by integrating online/offline payments getway with plots and property management system. The goal of this process is to be minimizing the discretion process. Its purpose was to prevent the embezzlement of money, to infuse a sense of confidence among the people towards Government and to create transparent and corruption free economic environment. Therefore, to provide  cashless transaction circular no.6 was issued by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board on 24.01.2017 directing all the Secretary-cum-E.O.Market Committees  that the licenses, plot/shop holder can make  due payments through online mode i.e. net banking, debit card, credit card as well as offline i.e. RTGS/NEFT, Cheque directly from anywhere without visiting Market Committee office. It was specifically mentioned in the circular that payment of all dues from the allottees would be collected only through the payment getway/PPMS. The complainant had also paid the installment of Rs.7/-lacs on dated 02.06.2017 by using the I.D, Password on PPM portal. Thereafter instead of making payment through PPM Portal the complainant submitted a DD of Rs.22Lacs to HSAM Board through his Advocate Sh.Parveen Naidu court PKL, but the same was returned by the Head Office and directed to deposit the same through PPM Portal. The complainant should have to deposit the installments through PPM Portal by using his own I.D. and Password, but he did not deposit through the portal and alleged the officials as well as the Head Office for not accepting the DD of Rs.22Lacs. An appeal had also been filed regarding the dispute by the complainant which is also pending before The Chief Administrator H.S.A.M.Board, Panchkula. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has tendered the Affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

                    During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted the receipt dated 25.07.2017 as Mark A-1, a letter dated 23.10.2018 as Mark A-2, receipts dated 27.07.2017 and 10.02.2018 as Mark-A & Mark-B, an advertisement of Marketing Committee, Ambala City/a public notice issued by office of Market Committee as Mark C, a copy of circular No 06 No. 4015-4123 dated 24.01.2017 as Mark-X  and a legible copy of above circular which are taken on record as Mark X/A for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire record including the written arguments/ submissions filed on behalf of OPs minutely and carefully.

5.             The controversy in the present complaint revolves around the mode of payment pertaining to the plot No. 304, New Grain Market, Charkhi Dadri allotted in favour of the complainant vide allotment letter (Annexure C-1) issued on the basis of approval/ sanction granted under Section 18 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (herein after referred as HSAMB). The allotment letter (Annexure C-1) contains all the terms and conditions including that of schedule of payment along with mode of payment.

6.             The case of the complainant is that the OPs have acted contrary to the condition No.6 of the allotment letter (Annexure C-1), which mandates that all due payments pertaining to the plot shall be made in cash or by way of bank draft payable in favour of Market Committee Charkhi Dadri, while not accepting the payment of Rs.22,00,000/- made vide DD No.510639 drawn in the favour of Market Committee Charkhi Dadri. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the aforesaid DD (Annexure C-2) was delivered in the office of OP No.1 on 05.06.2018 vide application (Annexure C-3) for depositing the sum against the due installment pertaining to aforesaid plot No.304 of New Grain Market Charkhi Dadri. The learned counsel contended that the said DD having the validity period of three months i.e. upto 01.09.2018 was returned on 05.09.2018 vide letter (Annexure C-4) after the expiry of validity period of the DD with the remarks that the balance payment of the plots can be made through online in P.P.M. Portal and not through DD or cash. Controverting the assertions of the OPs that the complainant had earlier made the payment on online by using the user ID and password. The learned counsel stated that the complainant had never made the payment through online as alleged. The learned counsel invited our attention towards (Mark A-2) stating that the OP No. 2 has sought the user ID and password pertaining to shop in question vide letter Annexure C-5 on 22.05.2018 and the same were provided to the complainant by OP No. 2 vide letter no.1094 dated 23.10.2018(Mark A-2). Concluding the arguments the learned counsel asserted that OPs have no right to go beyond the explicit terms and conditions of the allotment letter (Annexure C-1) wherein it was stipulated that all payments shall be made in cash or by way of bank draft. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana while deciding the CWP No. 13794 of 1995 on 17.05.2017 titled as “Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab And Others” and CWP No. 14374 of 2004 titled as “Darbari Lal And Another Versus State of Punjab & Others”.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP while initiating the arguments raised the objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the complainant has failed to avail the remedy available to him under Section 40 of HAPM Act, 1961. On merits, while countering the contention of the complainant it has been stated that the Government of Haryana with a view to  provide a clean and transparent administration to its citizen made it mandatory for all the departments, Board and Corporations to make all the transactions of payments through RTGS instead of cash, DD or Cheque. It is contended that the OP No.1 while complying with the directions of the Government, adopted ICT initiatives by integrating online/offline payment gateway with plot and property management system. It is further submitted that the OP No.1 issued a circular No.4015-4123 which is available on record as (Mark X/A) directing all the E.O.-cum-Secretaries Market Committees in the State that henceforth, payment of all dues from the allottees would be collected only through payment gateway/PPMS. It is further stated that LOG IN ID and Password of PPMS has already been distributed to all the allottees against whom payments were due and thus the OPs have every legal justification to insist upon the complainant to make the payment digitally utilizing the PPM payment gateway. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant had already made the payment of the installment of Rs.7,00,000/- by using the ID and Password of PPM Portal and thus the complainant is estopped now while seeking the permission to make the payment through DD instead of making the payment digitally on PPM Portal.        Concluding the arguments the learned counsel asserted that the complaint being devoid of any merit deserves dismissal in view of the circular dated 4015-4123 dated 24.01.2017 issued by Haryana Government aiming to minimize the discretion process as well as to prevent the embezzlement of money and to infuse a sense of confidence among the people.

8.             First of all, we take up the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the OPs. In this regard, it is well settled that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy to a consumer in addition to any other remedy available under any other law; hence, we reject this objection.

9.             On merits, admittedly, the only dispute between the parties in the present complaint is with regard to the mode of payment, hence the allotment letter (Annexure C-1) which contains detailed terms and condition governing the allotment of plot in question including the schedule of payment along with penalty clause and mode of payment is of utmost importance to sort out the controversy between the parties.  We have perused the said allotment letter (Annexure C-1) dated 01.09.2012 minutely and find that the proceedings of draw of plots, wherein the complainant was found successful, had been confirmed and approved under Section 18 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula. The allotment letter further reveals that the allottee i.e. the complainant was at liberty to deposit a sum of Rs.76.92 lacs on account of balance 75% of the price of the plot either without interest within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six half yearly installments with 15% interest or at such rate of interest as may be specified by the Board from time to time. It is, thus, clear that discretion was left with the OPs with regard to make the variation in the rate of interest. Further, the allotment letter (Annexure C-1) reveals that, as per condition No.6, all payments shall be made in cash or by way of bank draft payable to the Market Committee Charkhi Dadri. Thus, it has been revealed that no discretion of any kind was provided in the allotment letter with regard to the mode of payment. The complainant or the allottees were at liberty to make the payments either in cash or by way of bank draft. Needless to mention here, at this stage, that all the parties to a legally entered agreement are bound by the specific terms and conditions of the agreement and that none of the party is at liberty to travel beyond the specified terms and conditions as stipulated in the agreement.  Though, we have no doubt of any kind with regard to the intention of the OPs while insisting upon the digital payments and we agree that the online payments, definitely will go a long way in curbing the tendency of corruption by minimizing the discretion with the officers/officials, but the OPs are not legally entitled to make any variation retrospectively sin the terms and conditions of the allotment letter pertaining to mode of payment. Moreover, there exists a lacuna in the alleged circular No. 6 dated 24.01.2017 (Mark X/A) which provide the liberty to the allottees shopkeepers to make the due payments through online modes i.e. Net Banking, Debit Card, Credit Card as well as offline modes RTGS/NEFT Cheque or cash.  The relevant part of above circular in reproduced as under:-

        Now, the licenses, plot/shop holders can make due payments through online modes. i.e. Net Banking, Debit Card, Credit Card as well as offline modes i.e. RTGS/NEFT, cheque or cash directly from anywhere without visiting M.C. Office.

10.            A bare perusal of above circular would reveal that the allottees could also make the payment through cheque or cash in addition to digital modes of payment.  Therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussion, it is proved that the letter dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure C-4) declining the prayer of the complainant to make  the payment made through DD No.510639 amounting to Rs.22,00,000/- suffers from serious legal infirmities. Moreover, the aforesaid DD (Annexure C-2) delivered with the OP No.1 on 05.06.2018 along with application (Annexure C-3) having the validity of three months was returned to the complainant after the expiry of 3 months, which in no case can be said justifiable. Although the complainants seems to have made the payment of earlier installment amounting to Rs.7 lacs through PPM portal as revealed from   payment details vide (Annexure R-1) but at the same time the complainant has been provided the user name and ID and password  i.e nafesinghsahu72@gmail.com  vide letter No.1094 dated 23.10.2018 (Mark A-2) for which the OPs have failed to furnish any logical and reasonable explanation. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs while delivering the services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

11.            Regarding relief it may mentioned here that the complainant has sought the permission to deposit the sum of Rs.22,00,000/- through DD.  We do not accept this prayer of the complainant as he has already been provided the user ID and Password. However, we accept his prayer that the deposit of the DD amounting to Rs.22,00,000/- may be treated as having been deposited with the OPs w.e.f. 05.06.2018 i.e. the date on which the DD in question was delivered in the office of OP No.1 along with application dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure C-3).

12.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-  

1. The complainant is directed to make the payment of Rs.22,00,000/- to the OPs online by utilizing the user ID and Password within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The Ops shall not charge any interest (compound/simple) or any penalty after 04.06.2018 on account of delayed payment of Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty two lacs only).
2. The OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation charges.

 

13.            The OPs No. 1 and 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 and 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 10.10.2019

 

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                         Satpal                                        

President