राज्‍य उपभोक्‍ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0, लखनऊ।

सुरक्षित

परिवाद सं0-307/2016

सलिल अग्रवाल पुत्र श्री महेश चन्‍द्र अग्रवाल, हजेल 801/802, प्रेस्‍टीज सेंट जॉन्‍स वुड अपार्टमेण्‍ट्स, 80 सेंट जॉन्‍स क्रॉस रोड, तावरेकर, बंग्‍लौर-560029.

                                                  ...........परिवादी। 

बनाम

अंसल प्रौपर्टीज एण्‍ड इन्‍फ्रास्‍ट्रक्‍चर लिमिटेड, 115, अंसल भवन, 16, के0जी0 मार्ग, नई दिल्‍ली – 110 001 द्वारा चेयरमेन श्री सुशील अंसल।

............ विपक्षी।

समक्ष:-

1. मा0 श्री राजेन्‍द्र सिंह, सदस्‍य।

2. मा0 श्री सुशील कुमार, सदस्‍य।

परिवादी की ओर से उपस्थित: सुश्री पुष्पिला बिष्‍ट के कनष्ठि सहायक 

                          अधिवक्‍ता श्री तनय विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता।

विपक्षी की ओर से उपस्थित : श्री आसिफ अनीस विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता।

दिनांक :- 11-04-2023.

मा0 श्री राजेन्‍द्र सिंह, सदस्‍य द्वारा उदघोषित

निर्णय

संक्षेप में परिवादी का कथन है कि विपक्षी बिल्‍डर ने वृहद् प्रचार के माध्‍यम से आम जनता को अवगत कराया कि आने वाले मॉल  ‘’ अंसल प्‍लाजा ‘’, जो ग्रेटर नोएडा में स्थित है, उसमें बुकिंग प्रारम्‍भ हो रही है। परिवादी ने अपनी रिश्‍तेदार नूतन चन्‍द्रा के साथ एक यूनिट 2003 में बुक कराई। इसके बाद परिवादी की दो बहने सुश्री नूपुर एवं सुश्री शरन तथा उसके एक अंकल श्री प्रमोद कुमार अग्रवाल ने भी एक यूनिट बुक कराई। विपक्षी भवन निर्माण में अपना सहयोग करता है और सेवा प्रदाता है। विपक्षी के अधिकारियों, एजेण्‍ट तथा ब्रोकर ने परिवादी को लालच दिया कि नोएडा में बन रहे अंसल मॉल में कई तरह सुविधाऐं होंगीं और उनके द्वारा इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में बड़े-बड़े सपने दिखाए गए। परिवादी ने एक यूनिट सं0-एस एस एफ 01 बुक

-2-

कराई। प्रारम्‍भ‍ में यह यूनिट एस0एन0 जी डेवपलर्स प्रा0लि0 के नाम से थी जो विपक्षी के प्रयोग में है और बाद में इसे परिवादी के नाम हस्‍तान्‍तरित किया गया तथा एक यूनिट नूतन के नाम से दिनांक 16-05-2003 को हस्‍तान्‍तरित की गई। एस एस एफ 01 का क्षेत्रफल 537 वर्गफुट है जो द्वितीय तल पर स्थित है और इसका कुल मूल्‍य 12,61,950/- रू0 (2,350/- रू0 प्रति वर्गफुट की दर से) था।

आबंटन पत्र के क्‍लाज-11 में यह कहा गया था कि इस यूनिट का कब्‍जा 03 वर्षों में दे दिया जाएगा अर्थात् मई, 2006 तक इसका कब्‍जा मिलना था। आबंटन पत्र में भुगतान सारिणी भी दी गई थी जिसके अनुसार इस यूनिट के निर्माण के साथ भुगतान होना था। शेष 5 प्रतिशत का भुगतान कब्‍जा देते समय किया जाना था। इस यूनिट का निर्माण पूरा नहीं हुआ।

इसी बीच विपक्षी ने वर्ष 2006 और 2008 में योजना में संशोधन करते हुए 03 अतिरिक्‍त तल का निर्माण कराया तथा बिल्‍ड अपर एरिया द्वितीय तल पर 75 प्रतिशत बढ़ाया गया जिससे इस द्वितीय तल का क्षेत्रफल लगभग 250 प्रतिशत बढ़ गया। विपक्षी ने इस यूनिट का आबंटन न कर एकतरफा दिनांक 24-06-2006 को एक पत्र भेज कर इस यूनिट के बदले दूसरी यूनिट एस एफ – 204 का आबंटन कर दिया जिसके कारण यूनिट के क्षेत्रफल में 597 वर्गफुट की बढ़ोत्‍तरी हो गई। यह आबंटन मनमाना और आबंटन की शर्तों के विपरीत था। बाद में पुन: विपक्षी ने इस यूनिट को भी यूनिट संख्‍या-एस एफ - 217 क्षेत्रफल 628 वर्गफुट में परिवर्तित कर दिया।

वर्ष 2006 में विपक्षी ने एकतरफा आबंटित यूनिट की स्थिति में परिवर्तन कर दिया और इसके क्षेत्रफल को बढ़ा दिया तथा नया आबंटन मॉल के पिछले हिस्‍से की ओर कर दिया जिससे इसके मूल्‍य में 50 प्रतिशत की हानि हुई। कथित पत्र दिनांक 24-06-2006 का उत्‍तर परिवादी ने दिया और

-3-

जानना चाहा कि क्‍या नया आबंटन उसी स्‍थान पर है, जो सड़क की ओर स्थिति हो किन्‍तु इसका कोई उत्‍तर नहीं दिया गया। परिवादी ने पुन: दिनांक 22-07-2006 एवं दिनांक 27-07-2006 को अनुस्‍मारक पत्र भेजे किन्‍तु इनका भी कोई उत्‍तर नहीं दिया गया। आबंटी की आयु बढ़ती गई और आजीविका का साधन उपलब्‍ध नहीं हो रहा था और विपक्षी द्वारा लगातार सेवा में कमी प्रदर्शित की जा रही थी।

तत्‍पश्‍चात् विपक्षी ने दिनांक 19-01-2008 को कब्‍जा लेने का प्रस्‍ताव भेजा और शेष धनराशि अदा करने के लिए लिखा। इस स्‍तर पर आकर स्‍वयं परिवादी को अन्तिम योजना प्रारूप दिया गया। यूनिट का फिनिंशिंग कार्य भी नहीं हुआ था तथा इसमें अन्‍य मूलभूत सुविधाऐं भी नहीं थीं जिसके सम्‍बन्‍ध में विपक्षी को कई पत्र भेजे गए। विपक्षी पंजीकरण करने के लिए आगे भी नहीं आया और 15 माह तक उसने कोई कार्य नहीं किया जबकि मेण्‍टीनेंस का शुल्‍क इसके पहले से ही लागू कर दिया गया। इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में विपक्षी को दिनांक 12-02-2009 को एक पत्र भेजा गया कि वह अवैध धनराशि की मांग कर रहा है। बिना प्रलेख का निष्‍पादन करे किसी प्रकार का अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क नहीं लिया जा सकता।

इसके पश्‍चात् दिनांक 13-02-2009 को परिवादी ने विपक्षी को पुन: एक पत्र भेजा तथा विपक्षी ने इस धनराशि को कुछ हद तक कम करने की बात भी कही। विपक्षी किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है क्‍योंकि उसके द्वारा न तो यूनिट हस्‍तान्‍तरित की गई और न ही विक्रय प्रलेख का निष्‍पादन किया गया तथा एक पक्षीय रूप से यूनटि का स्‍थान परिवर्तित भी कर दिया गया।

परिवादी के पिता ने मौके का निरीक्षण किया और पाया कि यूनिट की हालत बहुत दयनीय है ओर फिर उसने दिनांक 10-02-2009 को विपक्षी को

-4-

ई-मेल भेज कर विपक्षी का ध्‍यान आकर्षित किया।

इसके पश्‍चात् दिनांक 08-04-2009 को सब-लीज डीड का निष्‍पादन किया गया। पुन: उससे अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क की मांग की गई लेकिन दबाव में उसके द्वारा फरवरी 2009 तक अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क दिया गया। कोई सुनवाई न होने पर पुन: विपक्षी को एक पत्र दिनांक 06-08-2009 को भेजा गया जिसमें यूनिट के आधिपत्‍य को देने में हुए सात वर्ष के विलम्‍ब का उल्‍लेख किया गया। पुन: दिनांक 08-08-2009 को विपक्षी को एक ई-मेल भेज कर यूनिट की कमियों की ओर उसका ध्‍यान आकृष्‍ट किया गया। विपक्षी ने इसका कोई उत्‍तर नहीं दिया। पुन: दिनांक 16-03-2010 को विपक्षी को ई-मेल भेजा गया और फिर दिनांक 20-09-2010 को विपक्षी को विधिक नोटिस भेजी गई किन्‍तु विपक्षी की ओर से कोई उचित उत्‍तर नहीं मिला। इससे यह सिद्ध हुआ कि विपक्षी ने यूनिट का भौतिक आधिपत्‍य प्रदान नहीं किया। परिवादी ने बार-बार भवन का आधिपत्‍य मांगा किन्‍तु उसे नहीं दिया गया।

परिवादी ने दिनांक 11-11-2011 को एक पत्र तथा दिनांक 18-12-2012 को एक ई-मेल भी भेजा। परिवादी ने यह भी बता दिया कि वह दबाव के अन्‍तर्गत ही अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क का भुगतान कर रहा है।

इसके पश्‍चात् परिवादी को मौखिक आश्‍वासन दिया गया कि यूनिट का कब्‍जा उसे दे दिया जाएगा किन्‍तु परिवादी को एक नोटिस दिनांकित 01-11-2012 मै0 स्‍टार फैसिलिटीज मैनेजमेण्‍ट लिमिटेड की ओर से मिली जिसमें यह बताया गया कि अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क रू0 3.15 प्रति वर्गफुट से बढ़ाकर 16.85 से 20/- रू0 प्रति वर्गफुट कर दिया गया है। इसके पश्‍चात् विपक्षी को कई अनुस्‍मारक पत्र और ई-मेल भेजे गए लेकिन उन्‍होंने कोई उत्‍तर नहीं दिया। मॉल के मैनेजर श्री डी0एन0 मिश्रा ने दिनांक 09-01-2013 को यह सूचित किया कि विपक्षी सारे ब्‍याज को समाप्‍त करने का इच्‍छुक है यदि सारा बकाया दिनांक 25-01-2013 तक प्राप्‍त हो जाए। परिवादी के पास अन्‍य कोई

-5-

विकल्‍प न होने पर उसने एक संयुक्‍त परिवाद अपनी बहन के साथ दिनांक 07-07-2013 को मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय उपभोक्‍ता आयोग, नई दिल्‍ली के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किया जिसका परिवाद सं0-686/2013 था और दिनांक 05-02-2014 को वापस ले लिया गया क्‍योंकि इस उचित फोरम में प्रस्‍तुत करना था।

परिवादी के पिता श्री एम0सी0 अग्रवाल ने अपने बच्‍चों के लिए 03 यूनिट बुक कराई थीं और इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में उनहोंने एक वाद सं0-343/2014 मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग, नई दिल्‍ली के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किया जिसे पुन: आदेश दिनांक 12-02-2015 द्वारा यह कहते हुए उन्‍होंने इन्‍कार किया कि यह उनके आर्थिक क्षेत्राधिकार के अन्‍तर्गत नहीं है। रू0 1,00,00,000/- (एक करोड़ रू0) से कम मूल्‍य होने के कारण परिवाद वहॉं से वापस ले कर माननीय राज्‍य उपभोक्‍ता आयोग में प्रस्‍तुत किया गया।

विपक्षी द्वारा सेवा में लगातार कमी की गई और उसने आबंटित यूनिटों का कब्‍जा नहीं दिया। वर्ष 2003 में आबंटित किए गए फ्लैट का कब्‍जा वर्ष 2006 में मिलना था जो नहीं मिला। यह अनुचित व्‍यापार संव्‍यवहार और जबरदस्‍ती का उत्‍पीड़न है। यूनिट का कब्‍जा न मिलने से परिवादी को अत्‍यधिक शारीरिक एवं मानसिक कष्‍ट हुआ। अत: परिवादी इस मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति और जमा की गई धनराशि पर 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज पाने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्‍त परिवादी बार-बार दिल्‍ली आने-जाने और पत्र व्‍यवहार आदि की मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 बतौर हर्जाना पाने का अधिकारी है। अन्‍य कोई विकल्‍प न होने पर यह परिवाद निम्‍नलिखित अनुतोष के लिए प्रस्‍तुत किया गया :-

1.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह यूनिट संख्‍या एस एफ-217 को पूर्ण रूप से तैयार कर उसका कब्‍जा परिवादी को सौंपे।

2.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह परिवादी द्वारा जमा धनराशि 17,26,550/- रू0 पर विभिन्‍न तिथियों में जमा किए गए दिनांक से यूनिट

-6-

का कब्‍जा दिए जाने के दिनांक तक 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक चक्रवृद्धि ब्‍याज अदा करे।

3.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह परिवादी को मानसिक उत्‍पीड़न, शारीरिक पीड़ा के मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 तथा आने-जाने के खर्च के मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 भी अदा करे।

4.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह परिवादी को यूनिट मूल्‍य का 50 प्रतिशत मय 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक चक्रवृद्धि ब्‍याज वापस करे।

5.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह परिवादी को अवैध रूप से लिए गए अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क, जो कुल 3,90,938/- रू0 है, को 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक चक्रवृद्धि ब्‍याज वापस करे।

6.   विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाए कि वह परिवादी को वाद व्‍यय आदि के रूप में 1,50,000/- रू0 अदा करे।

      विपक्षी ने इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में परिवाद पत्र पर आपत्ति करते कहा कि वर्तमान परिवाद चलने योग्‍य नहीं है। परिवादी कनाडा में रह रहा है जबकि उसने पता बंग्‍लौर का दिया है। शपथ पत्र कनाडा में नोटराइज्‍ड है। अत: ऐसी स्थिति में दिया गया शपथ पत्र दूषित है। केवल अधिकृत नोटरी आफीसर या शपथ आयुक्‍त ही शपथ पत्र दे सकता है तथा भारत के बाहर बनाए गए शपथ पत्र को यहॉं पर सत्‍यापित नहीं किया जा सकता है।

      परिवादी ने यह रीयल ऐस्‍टेट में यह धनराशि इस उद्देश्‍य से लगाई कि उसको इससे लाभ मिलेगा। अत: वह उपभोक्‍ता की श्रेणी में नहीं आता है जैसा कि मा0 सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय ने अपने निर्णयों में कहा है। विपक्षी एक मानी हुई रीयल ऐस्‍टेट कम्‍पनी है जिससे उपभोक्‍ता आकर्षित होते हैं तथा उसने कई आवासीय और वाणिज्यिक मॉल का निर्माण किया है।

      परिवादी के पिता श्री महेश चन्‍द्र अग्रवाल ने ‘’ अंसल प्‍लाजा ‘’ में 03

-7-

दुकानें बुक कराईं जिससे उनका एक मात्र उद्देश्‍य लाभ कमाना था। यह योजना, यूनिट सं0-एस एफ-217, 219 एवं 221 है। परिवादी के पिता श्री महेश चन्‍द्र अग्रवाल ने एक परिवाद सं0-343/2014 महेश चन्‍द्र अग्रवाल बनाम मै0 अंसल प्रौपर्टीज एण्‍ड इन्‍फ्रास्‍ट्रक्‍चर लि0, मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय उपभोक्‍ता आयोग के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किया था जो दुकान सं0-217, 219 एवं 221 से सम्‍बन्धित था जिस पर मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग ने कहा कि परिवादी उपभोक्‍ता नहीं है। इसी कारण परिवादी ने उक्‍त परिवाद वापस ले लिया।

      परिवादी ने ’ अंसल प्‍लाजा ‘’ में , यूनिट सं0-एस एफ-217 बुक कराई। परिवादी ने स्‍वीकार किया है कि उसके पिता ने अपने 03 बच्‍चों क्रमश: सलिल अग्रवाल, शरन अग्रवाल एवं नूपुर बोन्‍नेल के नाम से बुक कराईं। परिवादी ने यह नहीं बताया कि वह उपभोक्‍ता है बल्कि उसने इन दुकानों से लाभ कमाने के उद्देश्‍य से धन निवेश किया है।

      दिनांक 27-01-2003 को आबंटन पत्र निर्गत हुआ और दिनांक 21-01-2008 को कब्‍जा लेने का पत्र जारी किया गया। पट्टा प्रलेख का निष्‍पादन परिवादी के पक्ष में दिनांक 08-04-2009 को हुआ। कम्‍पनी ने पूरा प्रयास किया कि कब्‍जा 36 माह में मिल जाए किन्‍तु कुछ अपरिहार्य परिस्थितियों के कारण तथा सम्‍पूर्ण भुगतान न होने के कारण आबंटियों को कब्‍जा समय पर नहीं दिया गया। निर्माण पूरा होने पर कम्‍पनी ने अन्तिम कॉल नोटिस जारी किया कि 30 दिन के अन्‍दर बकाया का भुगतान करके कब्‍जा ले लें।

      आबंटन पत्र के अनुसार निर्माता को एक तार्किक समय कार्य पूरा करने और कब्‍जा देने के लिए दिया जाएगा। एग्रीमेण्‍ट के अनुसार निर्माण का कार्य दैवीय शक्तियों और परिस्थितियों के कारण समय से नहीं हो पाया तथा बिल्डिंग के सामान की आपूर्ति भी समय से नहीं हो पाई। इस कारण विलम्‍ब हुआ। इन सबका उल्‍लेख एग्रीमेण्‍ट में किया गया है। ये परिस्थितियॉं कम्‍पनी

-8-

के नियन्‍त्रण से बाहर थीं। यदि कम्‍पनी यह स्‍कीम छोड़ देती तो उसका दायित्‍व केवल धनराशि वापस करने का ही होता।

      परिवादी की ओर से यह कथन किया गया कि विपक्षी ने सम्‍बन्धित यूनिट समय से न देकर सेवा में कमी की है, जो गलत है। विपक्षी ने कभी भी जानबूझकर या किसी अन्‍य उद्देश्‍य के लिए विलम्‍ब नहीं किया है बल्कि यह अपरिहार्य कारणों से हुआ है जो उसके नियन्‍त्रण से बाहर थे। सेवा में कमी की बात आधारहीन है। परिवादी द्वारा लगाए गए समस्‍त आरोप बेबुनियाद और आधारहीन हैं। विपक्षी ने आबंटी को 36 माह में कब्‍जा देने का भरपूर प्रयास किया किन्‍तु उसके नियन्‍त्रण से बाहर परिस्थितियों के कारण ऐसा नहीं हो सका। कई तरह की घटनाऐं घटित होती हैं, जो ऐश्‍वरीय घटनाऐं होती हैं, जिन पर किसी का कोई नियन्‍त्रण नहीं रहता है। अत: ऐसी परिस्थिति में हुए विलम्‍ब पर ध्‍यान नहीं देना चाहिए। क्षेत्रफल में बढ़ोत्‍तरी या घटोत्‍तरी  ‘’ ले आउट प्‍लान ‘’ के अनुसार की जाती है। विपक्षी ने कभी जानबूझकर ऐसा कोई कार्य नहीं किया जिसका योजना पर विपरीत प्रभाव पड़े।

      हमने उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍तागण को विस्‍तार से सुना तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्‍ध समस्‍त अभिकथनों/अभिलेखों/साक्ष्‍यों का भलीभांति सम्‍यक रूप से परिशीलन किया।

      सर्वप्रथम यहॉं पर यह स्‍पष्‍ट करना उचित होगा कि विदेश में रहने वाले भारतीयों के लिए भी उनके दूतावास के माध्‍यम से नोटरी की सुविधा उपलब्‍ध रहती है और वे अपना शपथ पत्र सम्‍बन्धित दूतावास कार्यालय के माध्‍यम से सत्‍यापित कराते हुए भेजा सकते हैं।

      विपक्षी की ओर से पत्र दिनांक 24-06-2006 के द्वारा पुरानी दुकान सं0-एस एस एफ-01, क्षेत्रफल 537 वर्गफुट के स्‍थान पर नई दुकान संख्‍या एस एफ -204 क्षेत्रफल 597 वर्गफुट का आबंटन किया गया। दिनांक 05-03-2006 को परिवादी ने 94,646/- रू0 विपक्षी के खाते में चेक के माध्‍यम से

-9-

प्रदान किए। इस यूनिट का कब्‍जा 03 वर्ष में दिया जाना था जैसा कि विपक्षी भी स्‍वीकार किया है। विपक्षी के पत्र दिनांक 08-04-2009 के अन्‍तर्गत दुकान सं0-एस एफ 217 क्षेत्रफल 628 वर्गफुट का आबंटन करने की बात प्रकाश में आयी। परिवादी ने बार-बार ई-मेल विपक्षी को भेजे हैं जिनका यथोचित उत्‍तर नहीं दिया गया है। ऐसे कई ई-मेलों की प्रतियॉं पत्रावली में संलग्‍न हैं। एक ई-मेल दिनांक 09-10-2009 का है जिसे परिवादी ने भेजा है और कहा है कि उसे अफसोस है कि विपक्षी उसके पत्रों और कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक के बारे में कोई पत्र व्‍यवहार नहीं कर रहा है। वह अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क यूनिट का कब्‍जा मिलने के बाद जमा कर देगा।

      इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में सब लीज डीड दिनांक 08-04-2009 को निष्‍पादित की गई। इस सब लीज डीड में यह लिखा हुआ है कि सब लेसी का सम्‍पूर्ण प्रीमियम यहॉं 14,75,800/- रू0 अदा कर दिया है और इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में विपक्षी सम्‍पूर्ण भुगतान को मानता है।

उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के उद्देश्‍यों और इस अधिनियम के बारे में सर्वप्रथम जानना आवश्‍यक है :- 

This Consumer Protection Act covers entire goods and services of all sectors that are public, private, or cooperative sectors, except those exempted by the central government. The act provides a floor for a consumer where one can file their complaint against the product and the forum takes an action against the concerned supplier and compensation is granted to the consumer for the inconvenience he/she has encountered. The objectives of the consumer petition act may be summarised as –

• To Provide better and all round protection to consumer.

-10-

• To Provide machinery for the speedy redressal of the grievances.
• To Create framework for consumers to seek redressal.
• To Provide rights to consumers.
• To Safeguarde rights of Consumers.

What are the rights of consumers ? Let us know more about the rights of consumer. Listed below are the Rights of the Consumer

• Right to Safety- Before buying, a consumer can examine on the quality and guarantee of the goods and opt for ISI or AGMARK products.
• Right to Choose- Consumer must have the right to choose from a variety and number of goods and in a competitive price
• Right to be informed- The buyers must be provided with complete information with all the necessary and adequate details of the product, make her/him act wise, and change the buying decision.
• Right to Consumer Education- The consumer must be aware of his/her rights and avoid exploitation.
• Right to be heard- The consumer will get due attention to express their grievances at a suitable platform.
• Right to seek compensation- The consumer has the right to seek or ask for redressal against unfair and inhumane practices or exploitation of the consumer.

We have seen in so many cases that the builder actually torture the allottees  without any just cause because they earn interest on the deposited amount of the allottees

-11-

and also invest the fund to their other projects. This tendency should be checked and to them, it should be made clear that in the event of not handing over the possession of the flat/land to the allottees they must bear the serious consequences in this regard.

The Bombay High Court in a landmark judgement recently told city police that cases where a developer or builder cheats his customers, must be considered as criminal offenses rather than civil suits. The statement by Justice Shahrukh Kathawalla came when he was hearing a case where a housing society has accused the builder of cheating. While slamming senior officers of the Malad police station for failure to file an FIR in the case, the justice said, "I have repeatedly recorded in my orders that the complaints filed by the public alleging that they have been cheated by the developer cannot be termed as disputes of a civil nature. Yet the police officials are not ready to assist the common man when they seek police assistance and instead show them the door by terming their complaints as being civil disputes."

The homebuyers of Panchsheel Hynish in Noida Extension were taken by surprise when the builder asked them to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,60,000 to initiate proceedings of possession from company’s side. The builders’ argument is that he has not availed the extra FAR being granted by the Noida Authority in lieu of additional compensation to the farmers. Another additional charge has been asked for the developers’ own mistake to increase the size of the each apartment by 10 square feet, though without the buyers’ consent.

-12-

“We are middle class homebuyers with limited resources but if I deny to pay this unjustified amount I will not get the possession and I may end up spending even more money in litigations. I feel indeed harassed and helpless in such a system where there is no justice against the builders’ cheating,” says a distressed homebuyer Chanda Sharma (name changed on request).

In Greater Noida Supertech constructed 1009 additional apartments with its project Czar over and above the sanctioned plans for 844 apartments. Worst part is that half of these unauthorised apartments were sold even though the Greater Noida Authority sent the builder show cause notice for the violation of rules. Earlier in a similar incident, Supertech added extra towers to its project Emerald Court in Noida and the court ordered its demolition. The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Similarly, delayed possession and false promises have landed Amrapali Group in serious trouble as homebuyers cry foul, celebrity endorsements backing off and political connections deserting. A defiant Amrapali Group yet tries to blame the market slowdown and other factors but to self.

Amrapali Group CMD Dr Anil Sharma says, “Sometimes there are so many unforeseen reasons. There are so many force majeure, which are beyond the control of a developer. So, during those periods construction is stopped for two years, three years, four years, five years. Those periods can’t be contracted. There are two losses, one is

-13-

time loss, other is finance loss. We are not burdening that finance loss to our esteemed customers, but time loss we can’t make up. Ultimately, time loss has to be extended.”

Then there are developers like Jaypee Group and Unitech which openly declare they have no funds to complete the projects. All that they assure to the buyers is that the buyers have no other option but to wait instead of delaying the process further by litigations. Gaursons is also facing the homebuyers’ wrath today for delayed possession and unmet promises.

Mind it! These are the instances of branded developers who command a premium in the North Indian markets. If one takes into account the lesser-known developers and very many fly-by-night operators then the picture would be even more scary. This raises a fundamental question as to whether the government authorities are blind over the blatant cheating by these developers or there is something more than what meets the eyes.

After all, the developers have not only trapped the homebuyers but also duped the development authorities of Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway. In more than 100 real estate projects the developers like ATS, Supertech, Unitech, Orris, Omaxe and Logix have defaulted on payment of land cost to the government in Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway areas. The amount is staggering Rs. 10,000 crore.

-14-

Even the homebuyers who have succumbed to pay the additional demands after full & final payment to the builders are not safe either. In many of the cases the developers have not deposited the Lease Rent amount collected from the buyers to the authorities. And hence, the registration of the apartment is not possible. The developers, on their part, are asking the homebuyers to take possession by signing an arbitrary undertaking to the developers.

The declaration that the homebuyers are forced to sign is not only arbitrary but also illegal in many cases, as it prima facie absolves the developer against any responsibility and puts the entire blame of unauthorised possession on the buyers.

Cheating, misrepresentation, fraud have become an integral part on behalf of the builders/droppers and the easy victims are the buyer. Consumer Protection Act 1986 have been brought to provide the SPD justice to the consumers against the cheating and fraud of the service providers. They are making is a money by earning interest on the deposits of first by the buyers. The present case is one such example where the buyer is being treated for years and the builder is making money on his deposits.

The aim of any act forms the indispensable element, because it acts as the cord that delivers the real intention of the legislators behind the Act.  Whenever there is clash between two legislations, it is the aim of the legislation which makes the judges to derive at the endpoint in deciding which

-15-

law has the superseding effect. It is through the doctrine of pith and substance that judges are able to derive at the major inclination towards one act over another act. This inclination is decided on the basis of the aim/goal of the act and the facts of that particular case.

The beneficial legislation of Consumer Protection Act aims to reducing the grievances of the all classes of customers by providing them the preferential treatment. According to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer dispute is the entity where the consumer/ customers have been given the convenient safeguards against ample exploitation like bad customer service, faulty goods or any unfair trade practices. The interest of the customers is protected by setting up, the three tier quasi-judicial consumer Redressal machinery which are at national, state and district levels as per section 9 of Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) has been enacted in light of certain concerns related to public policy and the benefit of consumer.

It has been stated that the flat was to be constructed within 28 months from the date of allotment order but the opposite party has stated that there is no such cut of date because it was a tentative date not the final date. Let us presume that there is no date of giving possession of the constructed fact. Whether it will continue infinitely? The Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that if there is no time limit for the construction of a house, a reasonable time shall be presumed which is three years from the date of allotment order.

      यदि किसी आबंटन पत्र या एग्रीमेण्‍ट में कब्‍जा देने का दिनांक विशिष्‍ट रूप से नहीं लिखा है तब इसे 03 वर्ष माना जाएगा जैसा कि मा0 सर्वोच्‍च

-16-

न्‍यायालय के निम्‍नलिखित निर्णयों में कहा गया है :-

Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no 3533-3534 of 2017 M/s Fortune Infrastructure (NOW known as M/s Hicon infrastructure ) & Anr Vs Trevor D’Lima& Ors  judgement dated 12.03.2018 has said ,

“Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there 10 was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ? ” 

      इस मामले में पत्रावली पर उपलब्‍ध साक्ष्‍य से स्‍पष्‍ट है कि परिवादी ने दिनांक 05-03-2006 को 94,646/- रू0 अदा किया और दिनांक 24-06-2006

-17-

को विपक्षी ने पत्र जारी करते हुए ‘’ अंसल प्‍लाजा ‘’ में दुकान का आबंटन किया। यदि दिनांक 24-06-2006 से 03 वर्ष की अवधि गणना के लिए ली जाती है तब यह दिनांक 23-06-2009 होगी जबकि आबंटन के लिए धनराशि दिनांक 05-03-2006 को जमा की जा चुकी थी। पत्रावली पर एक अभिलेख यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने का दिनांक 08-04-2009 का लगा हुआ है जो सलिल अग्रवाल के नाम से है। इसमें यूनिट सं0-एस एफ 217 क्षेत्रफल 628 वर्गफुट का विवरण दिया गया है। सब लीज डीड दिनांक 08-04-2009 की है।

      इस मामले में कभी भी विक्रय प्रलेख का निष्‍पादन नहीं हुआ है और न ही कब्‍जा दिया गया है किन्‍तु परिवादी के अनुसार निर्माण कार्य पूरा नहीं हुआ है। यह आपत्ति उठाई गई कि इस मामले में कम्‍प्‍लीशन सर्टिफिकेट और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट नहीं दिए गए हैं और इनके अभाव में निर्माण कार्य पूरा होने तक यूनिट के कब्‍जा देने के लायक तैयार होने में सन्‍देह उत्‍पन्‍न होता है। कम्‍प्‍लीशन सर्टिफिकेट और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट के सम्‍बन्‍ध में निम्‍नलिखित लेख महत्‍वपूर्ण हैं :-

COMPLETION  /  OCCUPANCY  CERTIFICATE

When buying a home, it is vital to obtain documents, such as the Occupancy Certificate (OC) and Completion Certificate (CC). These are essential documents that allow you to mortgage or sell your home. Hence, homebuyers are advised to take possession of their flat or property only after these documents have been issued.

According to Vikas Bhasin, CMD, Saya Group, “Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate are some of the most important documents for a home buyer. Civic authorities can evict the occupants in case of non-availability of the necessary approvals. Before investing in a property, people must be doubly assured that all the certificates and approvals are in place.”

-18-

Let us dive a little deeper into the details of these documents and their importance before you make a move to buy your dream home.

Owning a home is the culmination of years of savings, research, and paperwork. After patiently waiting for the construction to be complete, you finally register the property and take possession of your flat. But what if your dream home is declared unauthorised, and you are evicted by the authorities? This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. This nightmare could turn into reality without a crucial link in the property sale process - the Occupancy Certificate (OC). 

The majority of apartments in different Indian cities have been occupied by owners without any occupancy certificate. This oversight can turn into a costly mistake, jeopardising the legal status of your dream home. The importance of the occupancy certificate cannot be overstated as it seals the legal status of your property and protects your ownership rights. 

Decoding legal documents 

To understand the importance of an occupancy certificate and other legal documents, let’s decode the legal jargon and understand their meaning in simple terms. Here’s a ready reckoner of the most important legal documents related to your property: 

Occupancy Certificate 

An OC certifies that the construction of the building has complied with the approved plans. It is issued by local municipal authorities or the building proposal department once the building has been completed and is ready to be occupied.

-19-

Simply put, without an OC, your building has not been awarded a ‘pass certificate’. 

Completion Certificate 

A Completion Certificate (CC) is issued only after the construction meets other building standards like distance from the road, the height of the building, and rainwater harvesting system. A CC alone cannot legalise occupation; the OC is a must. 

Commencement Certificate 

If you are buying an under construction property, make sure you check the Commencement Certificate before signing the agreement. Many builders do not wait for a Commencement Certificate. This is illegal and can create serious problems in obtaining an OC at a subsequent stage. 

Why is it unsafe to buy a flat without OC? 

In the absence of a valid OC, the local municipal body can initiate serious action against flat owners. In 2014, residents of a well-known building complex in Mumbai’s upscale Worli area were hit with a bolt from the blue after their complex was declared unauthorised. At the time of possession, buyers overlooked the issuance of an OC from the builder. It was only after that they were forced to evacuate their flats that the writing on the wall became clear to them. 

This is just one instance, and if buyers are not careful about getting the OC, they may face the following repercussions: 

• In the absence of a valid OC, your building can be demolished as it can be classified as an unauthorised structure.

-20-

• The OC is crucial while applying for a home loan or loan to purchase a resale flat. If you wish to sell or hypothecate the property after a lapse of time, you will not be able to do so without a valid OC. 

• The water connection, sanitary connection or electricity supply can be disconnected in the absence of an OC. 

How to obtain an OC 

The OC is obtained from local municipal bodies by submitting an OC application form along with the following documents: 

• Commencement Certificate 

• Completion Certificate 

• Built and Section plan 

• NOC for fire and pollution 

• Area calculation sheet of floor signed by an authorised architect 

• Photographs of the completed building 

• Tax assessment with tax paid receipt 

• Photographs of rain harvesting and solar panels 

• Copy of the sanctioned plan 

After submitting the form, authorities inspect the complex and confirm if it has conformed to the approved plan before issuing an OC. Legally and ideally, a builder should submit an application with the municipal commissioner for the OC within 30 days of completion of the property. 

How you can apply for an OC 

-21-

As a flat owner, you can also apply for an OC by approaching the local corporation or municipality, and if all approvals are in place, an OC is issued within 30 days of application. You will have to submit the same documents as the builder to procure an OC. 

Know your rights 

If the builder refuses to provide an OC, you should consider exercising your legal rights. You can issue a notice against the builder asking him to apply and hand over the copy of the OC within a month. You can also approach consumer forums and file a writ petition demanding the OC. 

Some canny builders simply present the receipt of the OC and dupe gullible customers. But you shouldn’t accept anything less than the actual OC as the receipt may be dated. 

Landmark legislations like the Real Estate Regulatory Act (RERA) have been passed to regulate the sector, promote transparency and protect consumer rights. However, consumers must be vigilant and understand their rights and responsibilities towards owning a property. Documents like OC are essential and ensure the security of your investment. 

Going forward, real estate experts believe that the OC should be made mandatory for the registration of flats and essential services. Until then, buyers must ensure builders get all the necessary approvals before handing over a property. 　　

-22-

A Completion Certificate (CC) is an important legal document that certifies that a building is constructed according to the laid down norms and master plan of the city. This document has all the information related to the project, such as the building materials used, building height, and building plan, among other things like provision for green belt.

In a nutshell, this document certifies that the building adheres to all the prevailing rules and has not violated any norms. In fact, this document is to be shown compulsorily to the authorities to obtain electricity and water connection.

Builders are allowed to obtain a provisional Completion Certificate when there are minor works left in the project. Authorities then provide a provisional certificate valid for six months. After the expiry of the six months, the developer is bound to get a final CC.

Who issues a Completion Certificate?

Local authorities issue the Completion Certificate after a thorough inspection of the premises. If the developer violates no rules, authority issues a Completion Certificate.

Why is Completion Certificate important?

Buyers must be aware of the fact that if they are buying or moving into a property that does not have a Completion Certificate, they might be making a risky investment choice. The civic authorities hold the power to slap heavy penalties on the developer, leading to stalling or cancellation of the registered layout of the project. In case the building is already occupied, residents may also have to face eviction in extreme cases.

-23-

Difference between Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate

Occupancy Certificate examines and certifies a property for adherence to bye-laws, civic amenities, electricity, sanitation and other clearances. On the other hand, a Completion Certificate is a document that certifies that a property is fit for possession by the buyers.

Clarifying the difference, Deepak Kapoor, Director, Gulshan Homz, says, “Completion Certificate is just a reaffirmation that the building has been constructed as per the building byelaws and the layout plan has been approved by various concerned authorities. Occupation Certificate signals that there is no violation of building construction norms, and thus, the structure is safe for occupants. 

Generally, these documents are not required at the time of registry, and hence, buyers tend to overlook or ignore these. But for their own benefit and peace of mind, it is warranted that buyers of both ready-to-move-in as well as under-construction properties check these documents before taking possession. This would help avoid any unnecessary dispute or confrontation in the future.”

      हमने यह देखा कि इस यूनिट का कब्‍जा नियमत: दिनांक 23-06-2009 को देना चाहिए था जो नहीं दिया गया। बिल्‍डर द्वारा इस तरह की अनियमितताऐं किया जाना और फिर ऐसे ऐश्‍वरीय कारणों अथवा अपरिहार्य कारणों का होना, उचित नहीं है। इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में मा0 सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय एवं मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय उपभोक्‍ता आयोग के निम्‍नलिखित निर्णयों को देखा जाना समीचीन होगा :-

In  R V Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt Ltd., 2019 SCC On Line SC 224, under the terms of the

-24-

ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:

         “9. We are in agreement with the view of the NCDRC that the rate which has been stipulated by the developer, of compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft. per month does not provide just or reasonable recompense to a flat buyer who has invested money and has not been handed over possession as on the stipulated date of 31 January 2014. To take a simple illustration, a flat buyer with an agreement of a flat measuring a 1000 sq. ft. would receive, under the agreement, not more than Rs. 3000/- per month. This in a city such as Bangalore does not provide just or adequate compensation. The jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award just compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot in the circumstances be constrained by the terms of the agreement. The agreement in its view is one sided and does not provide sufficient recompense to the flat purchasers.”

The Court observed that there was a delay of two years and hence the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent was reasonable and justified.

In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, there was a delay of almost two years in obtaining an occupancy certificate after the date stipulated in the ABA. As a consequence, there was a failure to provide possession of the flat to the purchaser within a reasonable period. This Court dwelt on the terms of the ABA under which the builder was entitled to charge interest at 18 per-

-25-

cent per annum for the delay in payment of instalments by the purchaser. On the other hand, the failure to provide possession on the part of the developer was subject to a grace period of twelve months followed by a termination notice of ninety days and a further period of ninety days to the developer to effect a refund. Adverting to these clauses, the court noted:

         “6.4. A perusal of the apartment buyer's agreement dated 8-5- 2012 reveals stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For instance, Clause 6.4(ii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to charge interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of instalments from the respondent flat purchaser. Clause 6.4(iii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the agreement, if any instalment remains in arrears for more than 30 days. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5 of the agreement, if the appellant builder fails to deliver possession of the apartment within the stipulated period, the respondent flat purchaser has to wait for a period of 12 months after the end of the grace period, before serving a termination notice of 90 days on the appellant builder, and even thereafter, the appellant builder gets 90 days to refund only the actual instalment paid by the respondent flat purchaser, after adjusting the taxes paid, interest and penalty on delayed payments. In case of any delay thereafter, the appellant builder is liable to pay interest @9% p.a. only. 6.5. Another instance is Clause 23.4 of the agreement which entitles the appellant builder to serve a termination notice upon the respondent flat purchaser for breach of any contractual obligation. If the respondent flat purchaser fails to rectify the default within 30 days of the termination notice, then the agreement automatically stands cancelled, and the appellant builder has the right to forfeit the entire amount of earnest money towards liquidated damages. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5(v) of the agreement, if the respondent flat purchaser fails to exercise his right of termination within the time limit provided in Clause 11.5, then he shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement thereafter, and shall be bound by the provisions of the agreement.”

-26-

Justice Indu Malhotra speaking for the Court noted:

 “6.8. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the agreement dated 8-5-2012 are ex facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the builder.” The Court observed that in these circumstances, the flat purchasers could not be compelled to obtain possession which was offered almost two years after the grace period under the agreement had expired. Hence, the NCDRC was held to have correctly awarded interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.

The decision of this Court in Dhanda Case 2019 SCC On Line SC 689  has been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the developer as elucidating the principle that where a flat buyers agreement stipulates a consequence for delayed possession, exceptional and strong reasons must be established before the forum constituted under the Act of 1986 awards compensation in addition to what has been contractually agreed. In Dhanda’s case, the SCDRC issued a direction for handing over physical possession of the residential unit to the complainant and for execution of a sale deed. In addition, compensation was awarded by way of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from twelve months after the stipulated date under the agreement. In an appeal by the developer, the NCDRC directed that the rate of interest for a house building loan for the corresponding period in a scheduled nationalized bank would be appropriate and if a floating rate of interest was prescribed, the higher rate of interest should be taken for the computation. A sum of Rs. 1 lac per annum from the date for handing over possession to the actual date of possession was regarded as appropriate in the facts of the case. In that case under the terms of the buyer’s agreements, possession was to be delivered within twenty-four months of the execution of the agreement i.e. 10

-27-

February 2013 – failing which the developer was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per square foot per month for the delay. The developer contended that construction activities were delayed as a result of an injunction granted by this Court over a period of eight months and consequently sought an extension of the period for handing over possession by one year. Alternatively, the developer offered to refund the money deposited with interest at 9 per cent per annum. Construction of 258 independent floors was completed while about 1,500 units were nearing completion. In two sets of Civil Appeals which came up before this Court earlier, agreed terms were arrived at providing for the award of interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till refund. While considering the order of the NCDRC, this Court observed:

“16. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer's agreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation at more than the agreed rate.”

Now the interest may be 6% to 10% in favour of the allottees if they have not been given possession of the

-28-

flat/plot within promised or within a reasonable time. The complainant has deposited the entire agreed cost of ₹ 2,997,610/– up to 1^st June 2014. Now it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party to deliver the possession within stipulated time but they failed to do so.

Regarding compensation

“Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, has observed that there is no fixed formula for fixing damages in the following manner

8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a 1 Apparent from the study of French Civil Code (FCC) and German Civil Code (BGB). 12 finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus, the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along

-29-

with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.

9. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss 13 inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. … We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer. (emphasis supplied)”

In  the  case  of   PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC).  These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs.

-3०-

Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr; , 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. ; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers ; byLtd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.

         The  Hon’ble  NCDRC  held that:

“Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to

-31-

the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses. The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  Hon’ble  State  Commission, these  appeals preferred  before Hon’ble National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission .

Hon’ble  NCDRC discussed various  case  laws  and  after  hearing  the  parties held,

“Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade

-32-

practice under  and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under   Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10 ( c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for

-33-

example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession.

Against this judgment, parties went to Hon’ble  Supreme  Court. The judgment of Hon’ble  Supreme  Court is:-

In  Nalin Bhargava  vs  Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-

          “Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc.                                         

       It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition  of  costs as compensation.

       Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised   objections    with regard to imposition of costs.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When

-34-

we say “cost”, we mean costs alone and nothing else.”

           In the case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra[Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No(S). 1795 of 2017] judgement delivered on 25.03.2019 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-

           “Interestingly, where the buyer is in default, the agreement stipulates that interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of default until the date of payment would be charged for a period of two months, failing which the allotment would be cancelled by deducting 5% of the entire value of the property. The agreement was evidently one sided. For a default on the part of the buyer, interest at the rate of 18% was liable to be charged. However, a default on the part of the developer in handing over possession would make him liable to pay interest only at the savings bank rate prescribed by the SBI. There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer that the agreement was one sided.

           In  the Case  of  Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors.  Versus  DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd (now Known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and Ors.   ( Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 6303 of 2019) ; The  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  has  held:-

“ 24 . A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression “service” in Section 2 (1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in

-35-

question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation. To uphold the contention of the developer that the flat buyer is constrained by the terms of the agreed rate irrespective of the nature or extent of delay would result in a miscarriage of justice. Undoubtedly, as this court held in Dhanda, courts ordinarily would hold parties down to a contractual bargain. Equally the court cannot be oblivious to the one-sided nature of ABAs which are drafted by and to protect the interest of the developer. Parliament consciously designed remedies in the CP Act 1986 to protect consumers. Where, as in the present case, there has been a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated debt, we are clearly of the view that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of its power to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is not constrained by the terms of a rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain.”

These builders are just earning money from the consumers to whom they issued allotment letters and got a huge amount. They keep this amount for a long time and earn interest on it. Property dealing is that part of business where they never pay a penny to the consumers on their amounts deposited for a long-term or if they pay, they pay a meagre interest of about 5% or so but they charge 18 to 24% or more if the consumers default in depositing any instalment. It reminds us the story of “The Merchant of

-36-

Venice” The Merchant of Venice is the story of a Jewish moneylender Shylock who demands that an antisemitic Christian offer “a pound of flesh” as collateral against a loan. These acts of builders also remind us the age of  Sahukari during ancient  India and also during British Raj. Whether these builders have power to frame their own law? They put their terms and conditions in such a way that the sufferer will always be the consumer. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted for the benefits of consumers,  so the courts dealing with Consumer Protection Act 1986 should come forward for their rescue. The courts are not governed by the builders but they are governed by the law, Custom and Usages. Now in the background of all the facts and also the facts of the present case, we will also discuss something more.

मा0 सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय ने विशेष अनुमति याचिका (C) सं0-24059/2022 (मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय उपभोक्‍ता आयोग द्वारा रिवीजन पिटीशन सं0-1187/2022 में पारित प्रश्‍नगत निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक 19-09-2022 से उत्‍पन्‍न), मेरठ डेवलपमेण्‍ट अथारिटी बनाम सुरेश चन्‍द्र गर्ग में पारित निर्णय दिनांक 05-01-2023 में कहा है :-

 “The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Meerut Development Authority assailing the order impugned dated 19.09.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It reveals from the record that the respondent –consumer filed a complaint with a grievance that he applied initially for allotment of a residential plot admeasuring 250 sq. mtrs. and Allotment Letter was also issued to him on 02.03.2006 and in terms of the

-37-

Letter of Allotment, the requisite amount was deposited by 2 him. But the Authority later unilaterally reduced the area of the plot by an order dated 01.08.2013 admeasuring 113.75 sq. mtrs. At this stage, the consumer obviously demanded for refund of the excess amount after the plot size being reduced. The excess amount deposited by the consumer was indeed refunded on 21.11.2014. The complaint of the consumer was that since he was never at fault and deposited the full amount computed in terms of the plot allotted to him of size 250 sq. mtrs., at least he must be paid a reasonable interest over the amount which has been refunded to him. On a consumer complaint filed by him, the District Consumer Commission, after adjudicating the disputes, passed an order dated 06.09.2019 to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire deposit from January 03, 2007 to July 01, 2014 within 30 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount until it is actually paid. The operative portion of the order reads as under :- “The present consumer complaint of the complainant

-38-

Suresh Chandra Garg s/o Late Shri Baburam Garg is partially allowed for the relief sought against the opposite party Meerut Development Authority in the relief clause of the complaint and the Opposite party Meerut Development Authority is ordered to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annual interest on entire deposit amount (Rs. 10,05,967/-) from January 3, 2007 to July 1, 2014 within 30 days from the date of this order. Otherwise, after the expiry of stipulated period of 30 days, the complainant will be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount 3 till full and actual payment. Apart from above, the opposite party shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental and physical harassment due to neglectful behavior and Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost.” The order of the District Commission was the subject matter of appeal before the State Commission. While entertaining the appeal, interim order was passed on 11.10.2019 followed with 28.06.2022. Order dated 28.06.2022 came to be questioned by the Authority by filing a revision petition before the National Commission and by

-39-

order dated 19.09.2022, the revision petition came to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the order passed by the Consumer Commission was reasonable and there was no reason of filing appeal/revision against the substantive order passed on the consumer complaint by the District Consumer Commission dated 06.09.2019. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction, to sum up the litigation which is pending for a long time, that let the order of the District Consumer Commission dated 06.09.2019 shall be complied with and the respondent be refunded the entire deposit with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a further period of 60 days from today, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum until actual payment. In sequel of the disposal of the present petition, the appeal and all proceedings arising from the instant complaint pending 4 before State Commission shall stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the State Commission for necessary compliance. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.”

-40-

इससे स्‍पष्‍ट होता है कि अगर हर्जाना की धनराशि 60 दिन के अन्‍दर अदा की जाती है तब साधारण ब्‍याज की दर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी अन्‍यथा ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी।

आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट के बिना किसी भूमि का कब्‍जा यदि दे भी दिया जाए तो वह विधि के अन्‍तर्गत कब्‍जा नहीं माना जाएगा। इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में मा0 सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय के निम्‍नलिखित निर्णय महत्‍वपूर्ण हैं :-

Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that failure on the part of the builder to provide occupancy certificate is a continuing breach under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 and amounts to a continuing wrong.

Factual Background

The appellant is a co-operative housing society. The respondent constructed Wings ‘A’ and ‘B’ and entered into agreements to sell flats with individual purchasers in accordance with the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (MOFA). The members of the appellant booked the flats in 1993 and were granted possession in 1997. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to take steps to obtain the occupation certificate from the municipal authorities.

There was an obligation on the respondent to provide the occupancy certificate and pay for the relevant charges till the certificate has been provided, however, the respondent time and again failed to provide the occupancy certificate to the appellant society. For this reason, a complaint was instituted in 1998 by the appellant against the respondent. The

-41-

NCDRC on 20 August 2014 directed the respondent to obtain the certificate within a period of four months. Further, the NCDRC also imposed a penalty for any the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate beyond these 4 months. Since 2014 till date, the respondent failed to provide the occupancy certificate.

In the absence of the occupation certificate, individual flat owners were not eligible for electricity and water connections. Due to the efforts of the appellant, temporary water and electricity connections were granted by the authorities. However, the members of the appellant had to pay property tax at a rate 25% higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate which was 50% higher than the normal charge.

Analysis

Obligations of Promoter under MOFA

Section 3 of the MOFA imposes certain general obligations on a promoter. These obligations inter alia include making disclosures on the nature of title to the land, encumbrances on the land, fixtures, fittings and amenities to be provided, and to not grant possession of a flat until a completion certificate is given by the local authority. The responsibility to obtain the occupancy certificate from the local authority has also been imposed under the agreement to sell between the members of the appellant and the respondent on the latter.

Sections 3 and 6 of the MOFA indicate that the promoter has an obligation to provide the occupancy certificate to the flat owners. Apart from this, the promoter must make payments of outgoings such as ground rent, municipal taxes, water charges and electricity charges till the time the property is transferred to the flat-owners. Where the promoter fails to

-42-

pay such charges, the promoter is liable even after the transfer of property.

Limitation

In the instant case, the appellant submitted that since the cause of action is founded on a continuing wrong, the complaint is within limitation.

Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides for the period of limitation period for lodging a complaint. A complaint to a consumer forum has to be filed within two years of the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues

A continuing wrong occurs when a party continuously breaches an obligation imposed by law or agreement. The continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong.

The appellants, therefore, were entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation.

“Rejecting the complaint as being barred by limitation, when the demand for higher taxes is made repeatedly due to the lack of an occupancy certificate, is a narrow view which is not consonance with the welfare objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

Consumer

Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines a

-43-

‘consumer’ as a person that avails of any service for a consideration. A ‘deficiency’ is defined under Section 2(1)(g) as the shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality of service that is required to be maintained by law.

In the present case, the NCDRC had held that the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as they have claimed the recovery of higher charges paid to the municipal authorities from the respondent. Extending this further, the NCDRC observed that the respondent is not the service provider for water or electricity and thus, the complaint is not maintainable.

The respondent was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate. The failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service for which the respondent is liable. Thus, the members of the appellant society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.

[Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd, , decided on 11.01.2022]

विपक्षी की ओर से कहा गया कि परिवादी ने 03 यूनिट का आबंटन कराया और उसका एक मात्र उद्देश्‍य धन का निवेश कर लाभ कमाना है इसलिए वह उपभोक्‍ता की श्रेणी में नहीं आएगा।

परिवादी ने अपने 03 बच्‍चों के नाम से 03 दुकानें बुक कराईं और

-44-

ऐसा कोई साक्ष्‍य विपक्षी ने नहीं दिया कि उसके बच्‍चे किसी सरकारी नौकरी में हों अथवा किसी निजी फर्म या बहराष्‍ट्रीय कम्‍पनी में उच्‍च पदों पर आसीन हों और उन्‍हें अपनी आजीविका के लिए इन यूनिटों की आवश्‍यकता नहीं है। हर पिता अपने बच्‍चों के भविष्‍य की चिन्‍ता करता है और इस मामले में परिवादी के पिता ने भी अपने 03 बच्‍चों के लिए 03 दुकानें आबंटित कराईं जिससे यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि उसका एक मात्र उद्देश्‍य धन कमाने का हो। विपक्षी ने ऐसा कोई साक्ष्‍य नहीं दिया कि परिवादी के पास अकूत सम्‍पत्ति है या उसके बच्‍चों के नाम से इतनी सम्‍पत्ति है कि वे अपनी आजीविका आसानी से चला सकते हैं। समय के साथ-साथ विवाह होने और बच्‍चे होने के पश्‍चात् परिवार का दायित्‍व बढ़ता है तथा वे पुन: इस कोशिश में रहते हैं कि अपनी आजीविका के साथ-साथ भविष्‍य के लिए भी कुछ कमा सकें। अत: वाणिज्यिक गतिविधियों के लिए इन यूनिटों को लिए जाने का कथन उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता है।

उपरोक्‍त परिस्थितियों में हम यह पाते हैं कि इस मामले में विपक्षी ने तय समय के अन्‍तर्गत यूनिट का कब्‍जा नहीं दिया है जिसके लिए वह क्षतिपूर्ति और हर्जाना देने के लिए उत्‍तरदायी है जैसा कि उपरोक्‍त न्‍यायिक दृष्‍टान्‍तों में कहा गया है। अत: वर्तमान मामले में समस्‍त तथ्‍यों और परिस्थितियों को देखने के पश्‍चात् हम इस निष्‍कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि परिवादी निम्‍नलिखित अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी है :-

1.    परिवादिनी विपक्षी से सम्‍बन्धित यूनिट सं0-एस एफ-217 को पूर्ण निर्मित स्‍वरूप और समस्‍त सुविधाओं सहित पाने का अधिकारी इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर है और यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर उसे इस यूनिट का कब्‍जा नहीं दिया जाता है तब वह 45 दिन के पश्‍चात् प्रत्‍येक माह 01.00 लाख रू0 प्रतिमाह बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति यूनिट का कब्‍जा दिए जाने के दिनांक तक विपक्षी से पाने का अधिकारी होगा।

-45-

2.    परिवादी विपक्षी से अपने द्वारा जमा की गई धनराशि 17,26,550/- रू0 पर उनके जमा किए जाने के दिनांक से यूनिट का कब्‍जा पाने के दिनांक तक 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर पाने का अधिकारी है। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

3.    परिवादी विपक्षी से मानसिक यन्‍त्रणा और शारीरिक कष्‍ट के मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर पाने का अधिकारी है। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

4.    परिवादी विपक्षी से अपनी यात्रा, ठहरने आदि के मद में हुए खर्च के मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर पाने का अधिकारी है। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

5.    परिवादी विपक्षी से हर्जाना के रूप में 1,50,000/- रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर पाने का अधिकारी है। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

6.    परिवादी विपक्षी से अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क और ब्‍याज देने के मद में दी गई धनराशि 3,90,938/- रू0 को वापस पने का अधिकारी है और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर पाने का अधिकारी है। यदि 45

-46-

दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

      तदनुसार परिवाद स्‍वीकार करते हुए अन्तिम रूप से निस्‍तारित किए जाने योग्‍य है।

आदेश

      वर्तमान परिवाद स्‍वीकार किया जाता है तथा विपक्षी को निम्‍नवत् आदेशित किया जाता है :-

1.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को यूनिट सं0-एस एफ - 217 का कब्‍जा इस निर्णय दिनांक से 45 दिन के अन्‍दर समस्‍त सुविधाओं सहि और कम्‍प्‍लीशन सर्टिफिकेट तथा आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट की प्रतियों एवं विभिन्‍न सम्‍बन्धित विभागों के अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र के साथ प्रदान करे और साथ ही साथ विक्रय प्रलेख का निष्‍पादन करे और यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर उसे इस यूनिट का कब्‍जा नहीं दिया जाता है तब वह 45 दिन के पश्‍चात् प्रत्‍येक माह 01.00 लाख रू0 प्रतिमाह बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति यूनिट का कब्‍जा दिए जाने के दिनांक तक विपक्षी से पाने का अधिकारी होगा।

2.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को उसके द्वारा जमा की गई धनराशि 17,26,550/- रू0 पर उनके जमा किए जाने के दिनांक से यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर अदा करे। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

3.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को मानसिक यन्‍त्रणा और शारीरिक कष्‍ट के मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान करे। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर

-47-

भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

4.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को उसकी यात्रा, ठहरने आदि के मद में हुए खर्च के मद में 05.00 लाख रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान करे। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

5.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को हर्जाना के रूप में 1,50,000/- रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान करे। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

6.    विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को अनुरक्षण शुल्‍क और ब्‍याज देने के मद में दी गई धनराशि 3,90,938/- रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 23-06-2009 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज यूनिट का कब्‍जा देने के दिनांक तक इस निर्णय के 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान करे। यदि 45 दिन के अन्‍दर भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है तब ब्‍याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण देय होगी।

उभय पक्ष को इस निर्णय की प्रमाणित प्रति नियमानुसार उपलब्‍ध करायी जाय।

वैयक्तिक सहायक से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह इस निर्णय को

-48-

आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।

          (सुशील कुमार)                     (राजेन्‍द्र सिंह)

             सदस्‍य                              सदस्‍य                    

निर्णय आज खुले न्‍यायालय में हस्‍ताक्षरित, दिनांकित होकर उद्घोषित किया गया।

          (सुशील कुमार)                     (राजेन्‍द्र सिंह)

             सदस्‍य                              सदस्‍य                    

प्रमोद कुमार

वैय0सहा0ग्रेड-1,

कोर्ट नं.-2.