Haryana

StateCommission

RP/136/2016

Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prem Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                      Revision Petitions No :  136 to 139 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:        23.12.2016

                                      Date of Decision :         07.03.2017

 

 

Revision Petition No.136 of 2016

 

1.      Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula.

2.      Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Adampur, Hisar.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Prem Kumar son of Sh. Chiranji Lal, resident of 169-B, Model Town, Adampur, Hisar through his wife Smt. Sushila Devi.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

Revision Petition No.137 of 2016

 

1.      Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula.

2.      Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Adampur, Hisar.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Bishambar Dayal Goyal son of Sh. Gulzari Mal, C/o M/s Aggarwal Brothers, Mandi Adampur, District Hisar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

Revision Petition No.138 of 2016

 

1.      Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula.

2.      Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Adampur, Hisar.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Mukesh Kumar son of Sh. Tejpal, resident of Mandi Adampur, District Hisar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

Revision Petition No.139 of 2016

 

1.      Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula.

2.      Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Adampur, Hisar.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Anil Kumar son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar

2.      Binod Kumar son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar

3.      Chander Kumar son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar

4.      Smt. Banarsi Devi wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar

          All residents of Mandi Adampur, District Hisar.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for petitioners.

                             Shri B.S. Walia, Advocate for the respondents-complainants

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          This order disposes of aforementioned four revision petitions bearing No.136 to 139 of 2016 filed by Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula and its functionary-opposite parties (for short, ‘Marketing Board’) because they have arisen out of common order dated November 15^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’).  For facilitation, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “8.     Keeping in view, the observations made herein above, the JD-Mandi Board have not completed the development work till date.  Hence, these four counter applications filed by JD-respondents are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  In view this position, the respondents-JD are hereby directed to make the payment of interest as awarded @ 12% per annum on the entire deposited amounts from the date of its deposit till realization and to make the development works complete in the area as discussed in the order passed by this Forum.  The respondents are not entitled to charge penalty and interest and other charges upon the delayed period of installments till the completion of the development work in the area.  Now, these execution applications are fixed for making the compliance as directed above for 29.11.2016.”

2.      Complaints No.1176 to 1179 of 1994 filed by the complainants were allowed by the District Forum vide order dated September 20^th, 2001, which is reproduced as under:-

“So, in these circumstances, the complainants are awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire deposited amount after two years from the date of allotment till the actual development of the area in question and till notification to be made by the respondents. The respondents are not entitled to charge penalty and interest and other charges upon the delayed period of instalments till the completion of the development work in the area and till the Notification. The complainants are directed to make the balance payment without penalty and interest after Notification and development of the area. The complainants are not entitled for any other relief as prayed in the complaints. Therefore, other reliefs are rejected. The opposite party is directed to complete the development work in the abovesaid area within a period of one month.”

 

3.      Against the said order, Marketing Board filed appeal before this Commission.  The appeal was dismissed vide order dated November 10^th, 2004.

4.      Aggrieved of the orders of the District Forum and this Commission, Marketing Board filed Revision Petitions No.534 to 537 of 2005 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  By order dated April 13^th, 2005, the National Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum and this Commission.

5.      Dissatisfied with the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission, Marketing Board filed Civil Appeal No.3122 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated March 26^th, 2014.

6.      Learned counsel for the Marketing Board has urged that interest at the rate of 12% per annum was to be paid by the Marketing Board on the deposited amount after two years from the date of allotment till the actual development of the area in terms of order dated September 20^th, 2001 of District Forum, which has attained finality upto Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereas, the District Forum vide order dated November 15^th, 2016 passed in execution proceedings has directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire deposited amount from the date of its deposit till its realization, which was factually wrong.

8.      The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Marketing Board has been candidly accepted by learned counsel for the complainants.  In view of this, the impugned order dated November 15^th, 2016 is modified to the extent that Marketing Board shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire deposited amount from the date of its deposits to the complainants and rest of the order shall be maintained.

9.      Disposed of accordingly.

10.    Certified copies of this order be placed in the file of Revision Petitions No.137 to 139 of 2016.

         

Announced 07.03.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK