Panchkula: Haryana agri board, market committee fined for delaying shop possession

Haryana consumer commission also asked the board and Sector 20 market association to refund ₹16 lakh along with 9% interest and ₹25,000 as litigation charges to complainant Savitri

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB), Sector 6, Panchkula, and the market committee of Sector 20 to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for the “mental and physical agony” caused to a Panchkula resident for failing to hand over possession of a shop to her even after 14 years.

The HSAMB and the market committee, in their joint reply, stated that the scheme was launched after obtaining prior sanctions/approvals from the competent authorities. (Shutterstock)

They were also asked to refund ₹16 lakh along with 9% interest and ₹25,000 as litigation charges to complainant Savitri, a resident Sector 14, Panchkula.

In its June 21 order, the state consumer commission observed that it has been a common practice among developers to collect money from customers for a project but invest the same in other projects, resulting in delay in giving possession. “...there is a deficiency in services on the part of the HSAMB and the market committee, thus the complainant is well within his/her legal rights to seek refund,” the commission noted.

The commission further stated that expiration of more than 14 years clearly indicated that the scheme had been launched without obtaining prior approvals/permission from the competent authorities.

Prior permissions not obtained: Complaint

In May 2008, the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB), Sector 6, Panchkula, had launched a scheme for allotment of shops on freehold basis in Agro Mall in Sector 20 of the district for marketing of various kinds of agro-based products, including food items.

Complainant Savitri of Sector 14 applied for a shop by depositing ₹3.75 lakh in the same year. As per the condition of the allotment letter issued by the HSAMB in May 2009, the possession had to be offered after construction of Agro Mall but no specific time span was mentioned. Later, Savitri came to know that the HSAMB hadn’t obtained prior permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities for launching the project. Savitri alleged the original brochure mentioned about 51 shops on the ground floor but later it came to her knowledge that 91 shops were sold on the ground floor, amounting to “unfair” trade practice. Finding the construction still pending in March 2013, the complainant sought refund, but to no avail.

Defaulted on payments: HSAMB

The HSAMB and the market committee, in their joint reply, stated that the scheme was launched after obtaining prior sanctions/approvals from the competent authorities. They stated that in the allotment letter dated May 18, 2009, no time was specified for offering the possession. Maintaining that it was payment-linked plan, they further submitted that the complainant had defaulted on making payments in accordance with the payment schedule.