Liability of the appellant to pay the amount received from the complainant and the modification of the impugned order to direct the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount received.

ORDER

Nawab Singh, President. (Oral) - Edge India Agrotech-Opposite Party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant), is in appeal against the order dated December 31st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short 'the District Forum'), whereby complaint filed by Ms. Renu Singh-complainant (respondent No. 1) was allowed. The appellant was directed to pay Rs. 12.00 lacs to the complainant along with penalty of Rs. 1,000 per day from June 6th, 2013 till its realisation, on account of non-completion of construction/installation work of Poly House in her field, as per Tripartite Agreement dated 10th July, 2012 (Exhibit P-3).

2. The complainant, applied for installation of Poly House to the District Horticulture Officer (DHO), Jhajjar-Opposite Party No. 2, on her one acre land in village Chhudani, District Jhajjar. Her application was sanctioned by the Horticulture Department-Opposite Party No. 3. The appellant was one of the firms empanelled by the Horticulture Department, Haryana for installation of poly houses in the fields of farmers in the State of Haryana. As per the sanction letter bearing No. 524 dated 7th August, 2012 (Annexure A-19), 65% of the cost of poly house was to be paid by the Horticulture Department and remaining 35% was to be paid by the farmer. The poly house was to be constructed on 4,000 square metres area. It was under a scheme of National Horticulture Mission (NHM). The cost of the poly house was Rs. 35,80,000 (as stated by Shri Ravinder Singh Ahlawat, DHO, Jhajjar, who is present in person).

3. A Tripartite Agreement (for short 'the agreement') dated 10th July, 2012 (Exhibit P-3) was entered into among the complainant-Renu Singh, the appellant and the District Horticulture Officer. As per Clause 4.1 of the agreement, the complainant was to hand over the site/land to the appellant within 7 days from the date of signing the agreement and per Clause 5.2 the appellant was to complete the installation work within a period of 45 days of handing over the site to it. The complainant handed over the site to the appellant within the stipulated period of 7 days after entering into the agreement.

4. The complainant paid Rs. 12.00 lacs to the appellant vide receipts Exhibits P4 to P8. The District Horticulture Department also paid Rs. 12,15,500 to the appellant through cheque dated 31st October, 2012 (Exhibit R-2). The remaining amount was to be paid by the Horticulture Department after completion of the poly house.

5. The appellant failed to install and complete the poly house within 45 days as per the agreement. On June 6th, 2013 a tornado struck the area, due to which the poly house of the complainant, to whatever extent it was installed, was damaged.

6. The complainant approached the appellant and the Horticulture Department, Jhajjar-Opposite party No. 2 to refund the amount paid by her because the poly house was not installed/completed within the stipulated period of 45 days of handing over possession of the site and even it was not completed up to 6th June, 2013, that is, the date of tornado. The amount was not paid and the complainant filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

7. The appellant-Opposite Party No. 1 in its written version stated that primarily it was the responsibility of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure that the construction work of the poly house could be commenced without any hindrances. However, neither the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 nor the complainant ensured proper and suitable work environment to the appellant to construct the poly house. The appellant erected structure at the site and wrote letter to the opposite party No. 2 on 2nd April, 2013 to inspect the site. The opposite party No. 2 was supposed to conduct the inspection of the project site within 7 days, as per Clause 5.4 of the agreement but the same was not done in spite of repeated reminders. More so, as per Clause 3 of Circul