Haryana

Panchkula

CC/108/2018

K.CHANDER AND ANOTHER. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

SHASHI BHUSHAN GAUTAM & HARJINDER SINGH

23 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	108 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	06.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	23.12.2019

 

1.     K.Chander son of Sh. Kidar Nath Bansal aged 65 years resident of H.No.170A Sector-2, Panchkula-134112.

2.     Nisha Bansal wife of Sh.K.Chander aged 65 years resident of H.No.170 A Sector-2, Panchkula -134112.

                                                                           ….Complainants

Versus

1.     Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd, 2^nd Floor, Ansal Plaza Sector-1, Vaishali Gaziabad U.P.

2.     Sh. Deepak Ansal Chairman & Managing Director Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd, 2^nd Floor, Ansal Plaza Sector-1, Vaishali Gaziabad U.P.

3.     Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. SCO-91,92,93, Sector-5, City Centre Panchkula-134109.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for complainant.   

                        Ms. Anureet Budwal, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.

ORDER

(Sh. Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants jointly applied for the allotment of office space for their own use and exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment in Shopping cum Office Complex, Plot No.194 in Sector-5, City Centre, Panchkula. The complainants were allotted space no.304 in Sampark-II measuring 647 sqft on third floor(later on changed to 648.28 sqft and no.310 in Sampark-I) during 1991 on leasehold basis @Rs.555/- per sqft for a period of ten years subject  to the renewal by the lessor on the option  of the proposed lessee in multiple of ten years. The lessee has also to pay ground rent @Rs.1.55 per sqft per year subject to increase @10% after every ten years of the lease period. The payment of ground rent, however, was to commence after offer of possession. The agreement to lease was executed between OPs and the complainant during 1991. As per agreement three payment plans i.e. PLAN “A”, PLAN “B” and PLAN “C” was proposed. The OP without obtaining  any option from the complainant made PLAN “A”, linked to progress of construction of building, applicable  to the complainant and started raising demand notices of deposits in installments of total premium of Rs.3,59,796/-representing the cost of 647.28 sqft space @Rs.555/- per sqft as per Payment Plan “A”.  The complainant  deposited full amount of Rs.3,59,796/- in installments that has duly been acknowledged  by the OP in the statement of accounts supplied with letter no.SPKI/310/2001 dated 29.10.2001. The offer of possession of the leased space was made vide OPs letter dated 01.05.1995. In the statement of accounts sent by OPs alongwith this letter, (i) demand of Rs.1,97,946/- on account of balance due which was paid in full for Rs.3,59,796/- as acknowledged by the OPs in statement of account (ii)  Rs. 1,19,559/-  on account of interest  on delayed payments up to 31.01.1995, (iii) Rs.21,281.41 on account of escalation charges. The rate of interest @ 24% on delayed payments as per condition 9(a) of agreement is quite exorbitant and unreasonable. The demand of interest for Rs.1,19,559/- is therefore contrary to facts and invalid. The complainants took up the matter with OPs vide their letter dated 13.07.1995 instead of redressing the issues raised in the complainant’s letter dated 13.7.1995, the OPs informed the complainants vide their letter dated 15.09.1998 and threatened to cancel their space and forfeit 20% of the total cost as per clause 9(a) of the agreement in case balance dues are not paid at the earliest and not later than 10^th of October, 1998. The Ops also informed the complainants vide letter 26.12.1997 that with effect from 1^st April, 1998 M/s Sunrisers Management & Estate(P) Ltd., 110, Indra Parkash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road New Delhi  are going to take over  the responsibility of providing maintenance, watch and ward to the property in the project namely Ansal Sampark-I, 310 Sector-5 Panchkula. The complainant No.1 vide letter dated 04.08.2004 pointed out that clearance certificate has not been obtained from the Govt. due to weak proposals, plans and slow pace of development. On the promise of the OPs that physical possession of allotted space shall be handed over on depositing of dues of escalation, lease rent, electric connection and Mtc. Charges. The complaints were induced to make the payment of Rs.15,960/- on account of escalation charges, Rs.17085/- on account of lease rent up to 31.03.2012 and Rs.6,483/-on account of electric charges was made by the complainants on the promise of Ops vide receipt no.10318 dated 31.12.2011, No.10319 and 10320 both dated 25.1.2012 respectively but even then the Ops failed to hand over physical possession of the space to the complainants. Additionally an amount of Rs.81,646/- on account of common  maintenance charges, capital replacement charges and tax up to 31.03.2013 was also deposited  with Sunrise Estate Management Services vide receipt no.89494 dated 25.01.2012. The complainant no.1 requested to OPs through email dated 15.02.2017 to send the completion certificate(certified copy), 2.Date of Sewerage Connection, 3.Date of electric connection temporary or permanent, 4.Building safely compliance certificate, 5.Fire safety certificate issued by Govt. of Haryana. The complaint pertains to the plot valuing Rs.4,80,970/-(Rs.3,59,796+15,960 escalation charges paid + Rs.17,085/- lease rent paid + Rs.6,483/- electric charges paid + Rs.81,646 common maintenance charges etc.paid). Since, the Ops neither replied the email dated 15.02.2017 nor replied to 40 reminders sent to Ops through email during the period from 28.03.2017 to 16.06.2017. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; time barred; no cause of action; have not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. On merits, OPs No.1 to 3 stated that lease agreement was executed between OPs and complainants on 16.01.1990. As per terms of the allotment letter there is no delay in offering possession of the above said plot to the complainants. As per allotment letter, it has clearly been stated that possession would be delivered within a reasonable time. As per payment plan complainants had opted for PLAN ‘A’ which is linked to progress of construction of building. The conditions of payment are as under:-

Payment Plan “A”

1. 5% at the time of booking
2. 5% on 1^st Nov, 1991
3. 5% after completion of excavation work.
4. 5% at the time of completion of basement foundation.
5. 5% at the time  of completion of basement roof slab
6. 10% at the time of completion of ground floor and slab
7. 10% at the time of completion of 1^st floor roof slab
8. 10% at the time of completion of 2^nd  floor roof slab
9. 10% at the time of completion of 3^rd  floor roof slab
10. 10% at the time of completion of 4^th floor roof slab
11. 5% at the time of completion of super structure
12. 5% at the time of completion of internal plaster
13. 5% at the time of completion external plaster
14. 5% at the time of internal painting  and white wash
15. 5% at the time of giving possession.

 

The OPs has mentioned relevant clauses in respect of possession from Clause No. 4, 6, 8(a), 9(b), 10 and 13 in terms and conditions of the Agreement.

Further, booking plot no.304(later on changed to 310) by complainants is purely commercial in nature as complainants have bookedpresent Unit in aforementioned project of Ops with objective to reapcommercial benefit of price escalation. Unit in dispute was booked and investments were made by complainants on speculation of price rise and thereby making commercial gains. Unit in dispute booked by complainants is meant for resale only and thereby complainants are intending to make profits. Further, the offer of possession of the leased space was made vide letter dated 01.05.1995 and statement of account was sentalongwith this letter, however it is incorrectto state that the demands raisedcome in operation only after delivery of physical possession by the Ops. Complainant did not deposit balance of the lease amount, escalation charges, interest accrued due to non-payment of the balance amount and outstanding maintenance dues and allied charges even though offer of possession was sent on 01.05.1995. The complainants did not deposit the outstanding amount even after sending various reminders to the complainant resulting in delay in possession. The possession of the unit can be delivered to the complainant after clearing the outstanding dues towards the unit. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.     Replication to the written statement of the OPs No.1 to 3 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.     The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-19 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A along with documents Annexure R/1 and R/2 and closed the evidence.

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, considered the written arguments filed by both the parties and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

6.     It is evident that the shop/office/store space no.304 measuring 647 sqft on third floor in Sampark-II Shopping cum Office Complex, Plot No. 194 in Sector-5, City Centre, Panchkula(Haryana) was allotted to complainants during the year 1991 on lease hold basis @ Rs.555/ per sqft for an initial period of ten years on payment of ground rent @ Rs.1.55/- per sqft subject to increase @10% after ten years of lease period and in this regard, a lease agreement was executed between OP and complainant during the year 1991 itself. It is an admitted fact that, initially, the size of  leased/allotted site in question was 647sqft but the same was increased by 1.28sqft from the original 647sqft to 648.28 sqft(No.310 in Sampark-I), at the time of making of offer of possession by OPs vide letter dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3). The factum of payment of Rs.3,59,796/- towards installments  though not made on due dates, is also not disputed, as is evident from statement of accounts dated 29.10.2001(Annexure C-2(colly)) sent by the OPs to the complainants

        The possession of the leased site was offered vide letter dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3) subject to the payment of amounts as mentioned in the statement of accounts appended with the said letter. The complainants instead of taking the possession after clearing the outstanding amount, sought some clarifications from the OPs vide their letter dated 13.07.1995(Annexure C-4). However, the complainants have made the payments of  Rs.15,960/- on account of escalation charges, Rs.17,085/- on account of lease rent up to 31.03.2012 and Rs.6,483/- on account of electric (connection) charges vide receipt no.10318 dated 31.12.2011, no.10319 and no.10320 both dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure C-8, C-9 & C-10) respectively. The possession of the site was not delivered by the OPs as the amount of interest accrued over the delayed payment of installments was not paid by the complainants.

7.     The complainants have alleged deficiency on the part of OPs on the ground that the possession offered by the OPs vide letter dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3) was not legally valid as it was a mere paper transaction. The learned counsel contended that sewer and water connection were not sanctioned in Plot No.194 i.e. the site in question as is evident from the RTI information received by the complainants vide letter dated 09.05.2018(Annexure C-16). It is further contended that the Ops failed to obtain the requisite occupation certificate/completion certificate from the competent authority prior to the offering of possession on 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3). In this regard our attention has been invited towards occupation certificate(Annexure R-2) wherein it is stated that it was a provisional permission valid for a period of six months only which has expired long ago. It is contended that the alleged occupation certificate (Annexure R-2) being expired has no validity in law. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the order dated 30.05.2015 passed  in First Appeal no. 250 of 2014 by Hon’ble National Commission, New  Delhi in case titled as Emmar Mgf Land Ltd. Vs. Amit Puri(NC) and another order dated 11.10.2018 passed in First Appeal no. 531 of 2016 & other FAs by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Singh Grewal & Anr.

Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel stated that the grievances of the complainants would stand completely redressed, in case, OPs are directed to charge the interest @12% instead of 24% over the delayed sum of installments. The learned counsel took the shelter of Clause 10 of the agreement Annexure C-1 which speaks about charging of interest @12%.  

8.     On the other hand, the OPs have resisted the complaint while taking the preliminary objections that the complainants do not fall under the category of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)of the Consumer Protection Act, no cause of action has accrued in the favour of the complainant to file the present complaint, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being hopelessly time barred. On merits it has been contended that the possession of the site has already been offered to the complainants vide letter dated 01.05.1995 (Annexure C-3), but the complainants did not come forward to take the possession by making the payments of the amounts as asked vide accounts statement dated 01.05.1995 appended with letter dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3). It is vehemently contended that it was incumbent upon the complainants to deposit the amount as asked vide said account statement dated 01.05.1995 as per the terms and conditions which are binding upon both the parties. It is stated that the complainants were repeatedly asked by OPs to deposit the payments and take the possession but the complainants preferred not to deposit the due amounts. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.     We take up the preliminary objections first as under:-

1. With regard to the status of the complainants as a consumer, the learned counsel contended that the complainants have booked the present unit in aforementioned project of OP with an objective to reap the commercial benefits of price escalation. It is contended that investments were made by complainants speculating the price rise and thereby making commercial gains. It is further contended that the complainant obtained the site in question for resale only with an intention to make the profits and thus, the basic character of the transaction of booking is purely commercial in nature, hence, it is asserted that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 wherein it has been held as under:-

“Commercial denotes pertaining to Commerce: it means connected with or engaged in commerce: mercantile, havingprofit as the main aim whereasthe word ‘Commerce’ means financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise on a large scale.”

 

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment passed by the National Commission, New Delhi  in case titled as Ashish Ahuja Vs. M/s Gold Cause Construction Pvt. Ltd.- CC 201/2015 –decided on15.04.2015 wherein it has been held as under:-

“We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the complainant and perused the record. It is undisputed that the complainant alongwith his wife has been running family business of retail fashion accessories. It is also not disputed that the consumer complaint has been filed in respect of alleged deficiency in service in respect of booking of shop, which is a commercial premises. Therefore, unless the case of the complainant is covered with the explanation, which provides restricted definition for commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be termed as “consumer as envisaged under section 2(1)(d)”.

The learned counsel for the complainants while controverting the contentions of the Ops stated that the unit in question was booked by complainants for their own use and exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment and thus, the complainants falls under the category of consumer. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Kushal K.Rana Vs. DLF Commercial Complex decided on 09.09.2014.

          Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the contentions of the Ops, alleging the commercial nature of the transaction, since no documentary evidence has been made available on record showing that the complainants are dealing in sale and purchase in real estate on regular basis. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the OPs that the business of the complainants is the sale and purchase of properties on a regular basis. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value. Therefore, the status of the complainant cannot be doubted in any manner. In this regard, we may safely, place reliance upon the Order dated 22.01.2019 in First Appeal no.1341 of 2018 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Krishan Kumar Khatri & Ors. Vs. Earth Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. wherein it has been held that the appellants are retired persons wanting to make a livelihood booked an office space for starting a business- The entire consideration amount for purchasing the office space was only Rs.20,33,500/- plus other charges and taxes-To dub this transaction as a commercial  transaction does not  appeal to us.

        We may also rely upon  the order dated 06.02.2017 passed in FA No. 101 of 2015 by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Dr. Poonam Aggarwal Vs. Gujral Associates & Anr. wherein it has been held that unless there is evidence on record that the complainant was engaged in the business of selling and purchasing of properties on a regular basis, it would not be proper to classify such acquisition as a commercial activity, merely on the basis of the number of units  booked by such person.

 

We may further place reliance upon the order 03.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in case titled as Rajesh Chatrath & Others Vs. MVL Limited & Others 2017(2) CLT (HR), where in it has been held that though the complainant No.1 was NRI and was running IT Company there, but he had purchased/ booked  the space for opening  centre for earning his livelihood as well as for his daughter- In view of this, the contention of the complainant no.1 that he had applied for livelihood has to be accepted.

 

2. The objections pertaining to cause of action and limitation period being intermixed and correlated with each other are taken up together for discussion.

The learned counsel for the OPs contended that the terms and conditions of the agreement are binding upon both the parties. It is contended that no attribution in respect of violation of scope of agreement has come forth or substantiated by complainant in any manner against the OPs. It is also contended that no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation etc. have been alleged in the complaint and thus, no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant or against the OP. It is further contended that the possession of site was offered vide letter dated 01.05.1995 (Annexure C-3) but the complainant did not come forward to take the possession. It is vehemently contended that the complainants failed to deposit the requisite amount as asked vide statement of accounts dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3(colly)) and dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure C-2(colly)). In view of the aforestated facts, serious lapse has been alleged on the part of the complainants.

On the other hand, the complainants contested the plea taken by the OPs with regard to limitation period stating that the cause of action in the present case is of continuing nature. It is stated that the possession offered by the OPs to the complainant was not valid in view of the fact that drinking water and sewerage facilities were not made available at site at the time of offer of possession. It is also contended that the validity period of occupation certificate (Annexure R-2) has already expired.

At this stage, basic question for consideration before us, is, whether the possession offered vide letter dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3) is legal and valid. It needs little emphasis that all basis facilities i.e. water, roads, sewerage and electricity etc. are required to be made available at the site by construction company/builder(OP) before offering the possession, so as to enable the allottees/consumers to utilize the site in a proper and comfortable manner. In the present case, information received under the RTI Act, 2005 vide memo no.94006 dated 09.05.2018 pertaining to SCO-194 i.e. plot in question reveals that the sewer and water connection has not been sanctioned. The genuineness of the said RTI information is beyond doubt as the same is unrebutted and uncontroverted. Even it is not the case of OPs that drinking water and sewer facilities have been made available at site even during the pendency of this complaint. Therefore, it is well proved that OPs have failed to provide the basic facilities at the site.

10.    Secondly, it is also well settled legal proposition that acquisition of occupation certificate issued by the competent authority is pre-requisite for the construction company/builder(OP) before offering  the possession to its allottees. Admittedly, the occupation certificate dated 27.03.1995 (Annexure R-2) in the present case is provisional in nature which was valid for a period of six months which stood expired on 26.09.1995. It is not the case of OP that the aforesaid occupation certificate issued vide memo no.E.O.(P)S-2215 dated 27.03.1995 (Annexure R-2) was got further extended or renewed. It is also not the case of the OP that the regular occupation certificate was ever obtained by them from the competent authority. In our considered opinion, possession of the site offered by the OPs vide letter dated 01.05.1995 (Annexure C-3) is of no consequence and hence, we declare the same as invalid and illegal. We may, safely place reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Lt. Col. Shailendra Singh and Others Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and others 2019 (1)CLT 523(NC) wherein it has been held that since the developer does not even have the requisite occupancy certificate for the flats allotted to the complainants, it cannot ask the complainants to wait further  for the delivery of possession. The complainants, therefore, are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them alongwith appropriate compensation. Delivery of possession without occupancy certificate would not be permissible in law and the allottee would not be able to use and occupy the flat without such a certificate.

We may also rely upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abha Arora and Others 2019(2) CLT 297(NC) wherein it has been held that offering possession without obtaining occupancy/ completion certificate is meaningless since the allottee is not permitted in law to occupy the house. The same principle is applicable for Plots also-Therefore the contention of the appellants that it is not mandated for them to acquire the completion certificate does not hold any water- No legal possession can be offered without obtaining the completion/occupation certificate-The project cannot be advertised or launched and no money can be collected from the general public till all plans are approved and permissions are acquired from the competent authorities.

11.    Now, coming to the issue of period of limitation, it may be mentioned here that neither a valid possession was offered by the OP to the complainant nor the amount deposited by the complainant has been refunded to him. In this regard we agree with the contentions of the complainant that cause of action is continuing in the present case. In this regard we may, safely, rely upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Uday Kumar Vs. Geetha 2019(2) CLT 36(CHD) wherein it has been held that as far as limitation is concerned, the complainant has a continuing cause of action, till the facilities and amenities provided by the petitioner are not provided.

We may also, safely, reply upon the order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Revision Petition no.2777 of 2015 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Nagar Palika, Nathdwara Vs. Vikram and others wherein it has been held that the alleged failure of the petitioner  to deliver possession of the plots  despite having received  the price of the plots, gave continuous/recurrent cause of action to the complainants  to file consumer complaint seeking possession of the allotted plots.

Reliance may be placed upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Balkar Singh Vs. Malwinder Singh Battu & Others., 2017(1)CLT 73(NC) wherein it has been held that on account of the failure  of the OPs in refunding the amount to the complainants, it was a case of continuing  cause of action.

12.  

13.    Now, adverting to the merits of the case it is an admitted factual position that complainants have made the payment of Rs.15960/- on account of escalation charges, Rs. 17085/- on account of lease rent up to 31.03.2012 and Rs. 6483/- on account of electric (connection) charges vide receipt no.10318 dated 31.12.2011, no.10319 and 10320 both dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure C-8, C-9 & C-10) respectively.

14.  

“If the aforesaid Space is required by the lessor, the amount of the premium received shall be refunded to the Proposed Lessee with interest @12% per annum. No other claim shall be made by the proposed lessee and entertained by the Lessor”.

15.    Thus, it is clear that the OPs are entitled to charge the interest @12% instead of 24% in case space is required by them.  In the present case as discussed by us in the foregoing paras of this order, the offer of possession made vide letter dated 01.05.1995(Annexure C-3) have been found suffering from some legal infirmities and thus, the possession offered to the complainants vide said letter was of no consequence. Therefore, no lapse can be attributed on the part of the complainants while delaying/stopping payments of due installments. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insistence of the OPs upon charging of interest @24% instead of 12% interest over the delayed sum of installments cannot be said to be reasonable, just and fair. In our considered opinion, after the making of payments of Rs.15,960/- on  account of escalation charges, Rs.17,085/- on account of lease rent up to 31.03.2012 and Rs.6,483/- on account of electric (connection) charges vide receipt no.10318 dated 31.12.2011, no.10319 and no.10320 both dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure C-8, C-9 & C-10) respectively by the complainants, a legitimate right had accrued in their favour to have the possession of the site with the clearance of interest amount calculated @12% over the delayed sum of installments but OPs continued to demand the interest @24% per annum. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the Ops while delivering services to the complainants; hence the complainants are entitled to relief.

16.    Coming to the relief, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it fair and proper to direct the OPs to charge the interest @12% over the delayed sum of installments.

17.    As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. That the OPs shall recalculate the amount of interest over the delayed sum of installments @12% and raise the demand from the complainants accordingly within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. It is clarified that no other demand shall be raised by the OPs except pertaining to the interest amount @12% over the delayed sum of installments.
2. That the complainants shall deposit the interest amount as raised by the OPs in view of directions mentioned at serial no.1 above.
3. That the Ops shall deliver the possession of the leased site within a period of one month from the date of deposit of the recalculated amount of interest by the complainants with the OPs.
4. To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment.
5. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.

 

18.            The OPs shall comply with the order as directed above, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:23.12.2019

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                         Satpal,                              

President