HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD versus BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 26-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 141 
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD 
A 
v. 
BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2006) 
MARCH 26, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
B 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency of services. c 
Agricultural Marketing Board allotting sites to the 
respondents for doing business of grain on payment of 25% 
of price of plots - Failure of Board to notify the Mandi as 
market Area and develop and provide basic amenities in the 
D 
said locality - Respondent also stopped the payment of 
balance instalments - Complaint by respondent before the 
Consumer Forum - Held: Maintainable - Appellant-board as 
service provider is obligated to facilitate the utilisation and 
enjoyment of plots as intended by the allottees - Inaction on 
the part of Board in providing requisite facilities for more than 
E 
a decade clearly established deficiency of services as 
respondents were prevented from carrying out the grain 
business - In such circumstances, levy of penal charges on 
respondent would be grossly unfair - However, the 
respondents were also incorrect in refusing to pay the 
F 
instalments and violating the terms of the instalment lett~r -
Adequate relief was granted even to respondents by the 
District forum and State Commission by awarding interest @ 
12% p. a on entire deposited amount. 
The Area of New grain Mandi, Adampur was notified 
as market area by notification dated 16.11.1971. In 1980, 
the State Government notified a sub market yard of New 
Grain Market, Adampur. The said area was transferred to 
141 
G 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A the appellant board on 24.01.1986. 
The appellant made allotment of the plots to the 
respondents on deposit of 25% of price of the plots. In 
the allotment letter dated 25.07 .1991, the method of 
8 payment and consequences of non-payment were laid 
down. The respondents failed to make the balance 
payment. The appellant-board issued a demand notice on 
the respondents. The respondents did not make the 
payment and instead filed a complaint before the District 
C Forum alleging deficiency of service on part of appellant-
board on the ground of failure of notifying the Adampur 
Mandi as Market Area and failure to develop and provide 
basic amenities in the said locality. The District Forum 
held that it is admitted that due to the omission on part 
of the appellant, no business could be done in the Mandi 
D and the boundary walls which were essential for the 
business, were not provided, the complainants/ 
respondents were deprived of doing the grain business 
for which the plots were purchased and as the area was 
not notified as a sub-yard, there was a grave deficiency 
E of service. The Forum awarded the respondents interest 
at 12% per annum on the entire deposited amount after 
two years from the date of issuance of allotment letters 
to the respondents till the development and notification 
of the area in question was not done. The respondents 
F were directed to deposit the remaining balance amount 
and the appellant-Board was directed not to levy any 
charge, penalty or interest on the same. The State 
Commission and National Commission upheld the order 
of the District Forum. The instant appeal was filed 
G challenging the order of the National Commission. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Statutory Boards and Development 
Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of 
H development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of 
HARYANASTATEAGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v. 
143 
BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL 
consumer forum in case of deficiency of services. [Para 
A 
6] [150-H; 151-A] 
2. Though in the instant case providing of amenities 
is not a condition precedent as per the terms of the 
allotment letters, however, the allotments were made 
8 
when the plots were in the development stage -on the 
condition that they be used only for auction and trading 
of grains, therefore, the present auction is different from 
a free public auction or an auction on "as is where is 
basis". In such a scenario the appellant board as service 
C 
provider is obligated to facilitate the utilization and 
enjoyment of the plots as intended by the allottees and 
set out in the allotment letter. [Para 7] [151-F-G; 152-A] 
U. T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet 
Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 460; Kamataka Industrial Areas 
D 
and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 
(2007) 10 SCC 4

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.