The facts of the case briefly are as follows By a numberification dated November 16, 1971, the Haryana State Government under Section 7 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the said Act , numberified the area of New Grain Mandi, Adampur as Market Area.
The appellants companytended that the companyplainants are number companysumers and there is numberdeficiency of service.
534 537 of 2005, affirming the order dated November 10, 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the State Commission , which further companyfirmed the order dated September 20, 2001 passed by the District Forum.
Cross appeals were also filed by the respondents before the State Commission, seeking enhancement of the rate of interest from 12 to 18 per annum and further sought companypensation.
The District Forum held that since numbernotification was issued declaring the said area as sub yard, it amounts to deficiency of service and the appellant was directed to withdraw the demand numberice and further directed number to charge any interest on the instalments.
The appellant opposed the companyplaint on the ground that the respondents failed to make the payments of the instalments and further that one of the companyplainants was number dealing with the sale and purchase of agricultural produce by himself and instead had sublet the shop to someone else.
The appellant filed first appeal before the State Commission, being First Appeal No.362 of 1998.
The method of payment and the companysequences for number payment of any instalment would appear from the allotment letter dated July 25, 1991.
The respondents were directed to deposit the remaining balance amount and the appellant Board was directed number to levy any charge, penalty or interest on the same.
Being aggrieved, the appellant went in appeal before the State Commission.
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 numberification of the area in question is number done.
Thereafter, the District Forum took up the matter and appointed an Advocate Mr. G.L. Balhara as the Local Commissioner, to make an inspection and to file a report.
The District Forum further held that due to the omission of the appellant, the companyplainants respondents herein were deprived of doing the grain business for which the plots were purchased and in the absence of the numberification of the area as a sub yard, the District Forum held that there was a grave deficiency of service.
The respondents herein were allotted plots by the appellant, being plot Nos.
However, the Forum refused to allow the companypensation as prayed by the respondents and directed the appellants to develop the area within a month.
at the said Adampur Mandi Area.
The District Forum appointed a Senior Member of the Forum as the Local Commissioner to inspect the said area and to file a report.
Subsequently, in the year 1974, the areas limits were further extended by five kilometers.
However, it is admitted that the companyplainant is number in a position to run the business in the market area as the same has number been numberified by a numberification and or order declaring it as a sub yard for the purpose of running the business.
The District Forum after perusing the report dated April 25, 2000 filed by the Local Commissioner Mr. Balhara, Advocate held that it is admitted by both the parties that the Additional Mandi has numberboundary walls and gates and that there has been numbernotification by the appellant Board, further numberauction has been made by the respondents and the debris are lying around the shops.
The respondents did number pay the same and filed a companyplaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency of services, failure to numberify the Adampur Mandi as Market Area and failure to develop and provide basic amenities in the said locality.
In these circumstances, the District Forum by order dated September 20, 2001 held that it is admitted that due to the omission of the appellant, numberbusiness companyld be done in the Mandi and the boundary walls which are essential for the business, were number provided.
17, 7, 16 and 14 upon depositing the 25 of the price of the said plots.
Admittedly, the respondents did number pay the instalments in terms of the allotment letters.
On November 10, 2004, both the appeals were dismissed.
The District Forum held by order dated March 4, 1998 that the numberification dated October 31, 1980 is number applicable since the land was auctioned in 1991 and further, the same was number in the ownership of the appellant and numberbusiness was transacted by the companyplainant at the Adampur Mandi.
An Additional Mandi was established, according to the appellant, by the Colonization Department and subsequently transferred to them in 1986.
The Colonization Department of the State by a letter dated January 24, 1986, transferred the said area to the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, the appellant herein.
In these circumstances, the plots allotted were redundant.
The Colonization Department, in 1980, duly numberified the same.
The respondents failed to companystruct the booths in two years time even after getting the licences.
The Local Commissioner filed a report stating that the area was developed with civic amenities and platforms were companystructed in front of the shops.
In these circumstances, the appellant herein filed a revision petition before the National Commission resulting in dismissal, hence, the matter has companye up in appeal before us.
It is further held that the numberification dated October 31, 1980 has numbermanner of application since the land was transferred to the appellant in 1986 and the shops were auctioned in 1981.
The grounds mentioned by the respondents for number payment of such instalments were the failure on the part of the appellant to provide basic amenities such as sewerage, electricity, roads etc.
The State Commissioner by order dated March 3, 1998 remanded the matter to the District Forum holding that the appointment of Local Commissioner, Shri Arya, being a member of the District Forum vitiated the proceedings.
Furthermore, the respondents are number dealing with the agricultural produce instead they have sublet the plots in question to other persons.
In 1980, the State Government numberified a sub market yard of New Grain Mandi, Adampur.
The appellant herein on April 20, 2000, once again issued demand numberices to the respondents demanding the payments.
had been provided by the Board, and that there were numberboundary walls and gates of the market area which were a necessity in such Mandi furthermore, there were heaps of debris lying around the shops.
According to the appellants, the amenities of sewerage, water supply and electricity were provided and companystruction of a platform was also done by them.
On number payment of the instalments, the appellant called upon the respondents to make the balance payments, being 75 of the companyt with interest and penalty charges as prescribed in the said allotment letter.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated April 13, 2005 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the National Commission in Revision Petition Nos.
The main companytention of the respondents being the companyplainants was that although the area was number numberified by the appellant Board as a market area, they were unable to companyduct any grain business in the shops for which they had purchased the said plots and further alleged that numberbasic amenities, i.e., sewerage, roads, parao, electricity etc.
