State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lt. Col. Balbir Singh, (Retd.), vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... on 1 December, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 01-12-2008 Complaint No.C-140/2001 Lt. Col. Balbir Singh, (Retd.), -Complainant S/o Sh. Lal Singh, R/o H-82, Kapil Vihar, Sector-21/C, Faridabad-121001. Versus 1. The Chairman, -Opposite Party No.1 Haryana State Agricultural Through Marketing Board, Vipnan Bhawan, Mr. Neeraj Kr. Jain, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana). Advocate. 2. The President, -Opposite Party No.2 Market Committee, Panipat, (Haryana). CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT 9ORAL) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties (in short OPs) in allotting a dangerous plot because of high tension wire passing over the plots, the complainant has through this complaint sought the following directions :-
(i) That the OPs may be ordered to cancel the allotment of their defective plot NO. 160, and refund the blocked amount of Rs. 78,000/- with compound interest @ 18% p.a. from 18-11-1990 to the date of actual payment.
(ii) That the OP department and their officers responsible for causing such unusually prolonged and deliberate harassment and sufferings to the complainant and his family, may be ordered to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that after fully developing the subject market, the OPs allotted many of the plots i.e. shop sites measuring 20 x 50 size to the local grain merchants having license of similar trade in the old grain market which had to be abandoned. As a compensation for their such disturbance, they were charged only the initial reserve price of Rs.76,000/- approximately for each plot, which too was to be paid in easy installments over three years. The complainant despite being partially disabled army officer belonging to the same town, could not become eligible for allotment of a plot on the above mentioned reserve price of Rs.76000/-. Hence he waited for the next date of allotment through public auction, which was subsequently conducted by OPs on 18.11.1990, but the initial reserve price by then got enhanced/ revised to Rs. 1.5 lacs for each such plot. However, the complainant became the successful bidder of plot No.160 at Rs.3.11 lacs and deposited Rs.78,000/- being nearly 25 per cent of the total cost, vide receipt NO.140 dated 18.11.90 as a confirmation/approval of this transaction OP No-2 issued their allotment order No.327 dt. 01.02.1991 containing the elaborate terms and conditions besides the details of six installments payable up to 01.021994 including the interest amount at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum + 4 per cent p.a. penal interest in case of default/ delay. It is noteworthy that subject sale of the plot continues to be legally incomplete as per para 8,9,&17 of their allotment order mentioned above. Since the plots were not numbered on the ground by the OPs during the auction, possibly to conceal the defects of the plots, the complainants plot No.160 and its adjoining plot No.161, turned out to be located under the subject H.T. wires. The reasons of possible concealment of the demerits of the plots are evident from the contents of para 4 of 16 of their aforesaid allotment order.
3. That the dangerous consequences of H.T. wires passing over the plots caused an alarm when one or two of the construction laborers lost their lives at the roof top of plot No.161, due to so called electro-magnetic flux/radiation of the H.T. wires. The aggrieved allottee abandoned the construction of first floor and resumed his business in the single storey shop only, ignoring the OPs building plan besides stoppage of further payments.
4. That the complainant applied for the annulment of the auction of his plot No.160 narrating the turn of events about the adjoining plot No.161 as mentioned above. Finding a major portion of his hard savings blocked in the bad bargain, the complainant ran from pillar to post for some solution or relief. Since the refund of the blocked amount with/without interest was not easy process and nor was any better plot offered, the complainant requested for the same plot at its reserve price only. After lengthy correspondence, petitions, in our views and missive follow up exercises, the OP No.1 took a decision at last that the defective plot be sold to the complainant at the reserve price of Rs.1.5 lacs only, vide letter NO. LA-1-94/74414-15 dated 21.10.1994.
5. That enhancement of this plots reserve price from Rs.76000/- (initial) to Rs. 1.5. lacs (revised) could not be contended on the strength of logic, in the beginning. However, it was only on perusal of the tainted addition to their aforesaid order for recovery of interest also, the complainant felt duped and unfairly treated, because in the main decision of the Boards meeting only the balance amount of Rs.72,000/- was to be recovered. Therefore, the complainant appealed against the OPs above decision and requested to consider blockade of his Rs.78,000/- without possession of the plot since 18.11.90, yielding nothing but harassment, mental agony and pains for years.
6. That at this stage the complainant questioned the enhancement of its reserve price to Rs.1.5 lacs from the initially fixed Rs.76,000/-for allotting even un-defective plots to the local licensee traders. The complainant on finding out the exact location of his plot which happened to be under the HT wires, applied for allotment of same plot on its reserve price only, vide his application dt. 05.12.90 quoting the example of licensee grain merchants of his hometown. Later, after the mishap due to the HT wires on the adjoining plot-161, the complainant submitted another application dated 26.12.1991 to the OPs for annulment of their auction of the defective plots-160 and for allotting the same on its reserve price. But both these applications have not been referred in their NO.LAI-94/74414-15 dt.21.10.94. Both the letters of OP NO.2 addressed to the OP NO.1 (letters NO.2512 dt.15.03.95 and NO.221 dt.15.05.95) remain unanswered till date. However, postal ack-card of RL-2693 dt. 16.02.98 has been obtained.
7. Denying the allegations of the complainant the OPs have come up with the following version :-
(i) That the complaint is hopelessly barred by time and the complainant is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment letters.
(ii) That the complainant himself is defaulter in payment and he requested the answering OP for reduction of the price of the plot due to high tension wire and the same was accepted but inspite of all this he again requested for extension of time to deposit the installments. The board has framed policy for allotment of plots by draw of lots of various categories including the ex-servicemen on reserve price fixed by the Board. There was reservation of 45% of total number of shops for the old licensees already doing their business in the old mandi. Accordingly, the shops were given to them by draw of lots on reserve price. The plot was allotted through public auction and the complainant became the successful bidder of the plot and the allotment letter was issued on 01.02.1991, which contains the terms and conditions vide which the complainant is bound to pay 6 installments payable upto 01.02.1994.
(iii) That the complainant was very much aware about the position of the plot at the time of allotment. The auction was conducted in the grain market and numbers of the plots were also earmarked on the platform. There was no complaint from the allottee of plot NO.61 about any loss of life at the time of construction.
(iv) That the complainant failed to deposit the amount of Rs.53,397/- on account of 1st installment and interest thereon as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Show cause notice for imposing penalty was issued to the complainant vide memo dated 02.12.1991. In reply to the said show cause notice the complainant submitted his reply requesting therein that he could not arrange the amount due towards him due to some unavoidable default and he further requested for extension of time for payment upto 29.02.1992. The complainant further wrote a letter on 26.02.1992 to the Chairman, Harayana State Agricultural and Marketing Board requesting therein for charging the reserve price of only Rs. 1.50 lacs as the bidder were ignorant during auction about high tension wire over the plots and he also requested for permission to keep the roof lower by 2 feet than other shops. The complainant has not deposited any installment after the allotment of the plot of the shop. Notice for payment of installment was issued to the complainant on 30.06.1993. On the request of the complainant the Board has taken the decision on his letter dated 26.01.1992 and the cost of the plot was reduced from Rs.3,11,000/- to RS.1.50 lacs.
(v) That the complainant has never applied for the possession of the said plot. The OP was ready for giving the delivery of the said plot. The complainant was not interested to construct this shop within 2 years of the date of the allotment. As per condition No.13 of the allotment letter the complainant is bound to construct the shop within 2 years form the date of allotment. Hence, he has to pay for this default also. The complainant was avoiding the construction and knows the consequences of the case. He is only interested for extension of time for payment of the remaining installments without any interest.
(vi) That the complainant was very much aware about the high-tension wire at the time of auction even thereafter the answering OP reduced the price of the plot on the request of the complainant way back in the year 1994. Present complaint may kindly be dismissed with special costs.
8. We have accorded careful consideration to the rival contentions and claims of the parties. As regards the objection that the complaint is barred by limitation, it has no substance because all such disputes are of subsisting nature and cause of action is available from the date of last communication between the parties including legal notice and reply thereof. Any consumer who is having consumer dispute always tries to solve the same firstly by contacting the concerned opposite party and does not immediately rush to the Court as now a days it is very time consuming and costly affair.
9. On merits we find that the main grievance of the complainant was that at the time of auction the plots were not numbered possibly to conceal the defects that plot No. 160 and its adjoining plot No. 161 were located under the high tension wires. So much so the high tension wire passing over the plots caused an alarm when one or two of the construction labours lost their lives at the roof top of plot No. 161 due to so called electro-magnetic flux/radiation of the high tension wires and as a result the allottee abandoned the construction of first floor and resumed his business in the single storey shop only. Finding himself in such a position he made a request to the OP for reducing the reserve price of Rs. 1.5 lacs to Rs. 76,000/- for having allotted such a defective plot.
10. However, it is contended by the counsel for the OP that the plot was auctioned for Rs. 3,11,000/- and he had deposited Rs. 78,000/- which was 25% of the auction amount and as per decision he was required to pay further sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest. Thereafter he stopped paying any instalment. Further he was required to complete construction within a period of 2 years and in the intervening period complainant filed the instant complaint and therefore OP did not take any decision either for cancellation of the plot or for any other kind of decision as per the terms and conditions.
11. Be that as it may the fact remains that the whole problem arose because of the plot was situated under the high tension wires and therefore some consideration should have been given to such plots by taking some decision as any plot which is under the high tension wires is so located that the sale price of the plots would always be less as it always involves dangerous situation any time.
12. However, taking overall view of the matter and the aforesaid limited aspect coupled with the fact that the complainant stopped paying further instalments and had requested for charging Rs. 78,000/- against reserved price of Rs. 1.5 lacs, the OP should have accorded some consideration to his request by treating it as a special case and for having sold a plot without bringing it to the notice of the complainant at the time of auction that the high tension wires are passing through the plot, the OP shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
However, the OP is at liberty to take any decision in terms of the allotment.
13. Aforesaid payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
14. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
16. Announced on 1st December, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj