राज्‍य उपभोक्‍ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0, लखनऊ

अपील संख्‍या-331/2022

(मौखिक)

(जिला उपभोक्‍ता आयोग-द्वितीय, लखनऊ द्वारा परिवाद संख्‍या 69/2014 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 18.10.2017 के विरूद्ध)

1. रीता सिंह, पत्‍नी स्‍व0 श्री देवेन्‍द्र सिंह, निवासी- बी-54, आनन्‍द नगर, रायबरेली।

2. देवेन्‍द्र सिंह, पुत्र बद्री प्रसाद सिंह, निवासी- बी-54, आनन्‍द नगर, रायबरेली। (मृतक, मृत्‍यु की तिथि 19.06.2021)

                             ........................अपीलार्थी/परिवादीगण

बनाम

1. अंसल प्रापर्टीज एण्‍ड इन्‍फ्रास्‍ट्रक्‍चर लि0, ग्राउण्‍ड फ्लोर, वाई0एम0सी0ए0 कैम्‍पस 13, राणा प्रताप मार्ग, लखनऊ-226001, द्वारा मैनेजर।

2. कु0 निकिता यादव, पुत्री श्री चन्द्रिका सिंह यादव, निवासी-1503/23/47/55 एफ, किदवई नगर, अल्‍लापुर, दारागंज, इलाहाबाद, जिला-प्रयागराज।

                                        ...................प्रत्‍यर्थीगण

समक्ष:-

1. माननीय न्‍यायमूर्ति श्री अशोक कुमार, अध्‍यक्ष।

2. माननीय श्री विकास सक्‍सेना, सदस्‍य। 

अपीलार्थी की ओर से उपस्थित : स्‍वयं एवं श्री उमेश कुमार श्रीवास्‍तव,                                  

                           विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता।

प्रत्‍यर्थी सं01 की ओर से उपस्थित : श्री मानवेन्‍द्र प्रताप सिंह,                                                   

                              विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता।

प्रत्‍यर्थी सं02 की ओर से उपस्थित : कोई नहीं।

दिनांक: 14.06.2022

माननीय न्‍यायमूर्ति श्री अशोक कुमार, अध्‍यक्ष द्वारा उदघोषित

निर्णय

प्रस्‍तुत अपील में उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍तागण को सुनने के उपरान्‍त दिनांक 08.06.2022 एवं पुन: दिनांक 10.06.2022 को निम्‍न आदेश पारित किया गया था:-

''दिनांक 10-06-2022

वाद पुकारा गया।

-2-

प्रस्‍तुत अपील में उभयपक्ष के विद्धान अधिवक्‍तागण को सुनने के उपरान्‍त दिनांक 08-06-2022 को निम्‍न विस्‍तृत आदेश पारित किया गया था :-

दिनांक- 08.06.2022

प्रस्‍तुत अपील इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख अपीलार्थीगण द्वारा निम्‍न अनुतोष प्रदान किये जाने हेतु प्रस्‍तुत की गयी है:-

" To allow the appeal and thereby modify the judgment & order dated 18-10-2017 passed by ld. District Commission-।।, Lucknow in CC/69/2014 to the extent that the respondent may be directed to give another Flat in place of Flat in question.

OR

To allow the appeal and thereby modify the judgment & order  dated 18-10-2017 passed by ld District Commission-1,Lucknow in CC/69/2014 to the extent that the respondent may be directed to give the plot of same size (in place of Flat in question) by deducting the cost of construction of Flat to appellant.

To direct the respondent to give interest @18% on the deposited amount from the date of deposite to the date of payment.

To pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may     deem just and proper in the interest of justice." .

परन्‍तु  पत्रावली पर उपलब्‍ध प्रपत्रों के परिशीलन से यह स्‍पष्‍ट पाया गया कि जिला आयोग द्वारा परिवाद संख्‍या 69/2014 अपीलार्थीगण के पक्ष में दिनांक 18-10-2017 को निर्णीत किया गया। उपरोक्‍त निर्णय के अनुपालन हेतु अपीलार्थिनी द्वारा इजरायवाद संख्‍या 67/2018 योजित किया गया जिसमें दिनांक 30-03-2022 को विद्वान जिला आयोग द्वारा आदेश पारित किया गया तथा इजरायवाद को अगली निश्चित तिथि दिनांक 21-05-2022 को सूचीबद्ध करने हेतु आदेशित किया गया।

उपरोक्‍त निश्चित तिथि दिनांक 21-05-2022 से पूर्व ही अपीलार्थीगण द्वारा इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख प्रस्‍तुत अपील संख्‍या- 331/2022 योजित की गयी जिस पर उभय-पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍तागण अर्थात अपीलार्थीगण की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री उमेश कुमार श्रीवास्‍तव एवं श्री सुबीर सरकार उपस्थित हुए। प्रत्‍यर्थी कम्‍पनी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री मानवेन्‍द्र प्रताप सिंह उपस्थित हुए।              उभय-पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ताद्व्‍य के तर्क को विस्‍तार से सुना गया।

निर्विवादित रूप से अपीलार्थिनी द्वारा यूनिट बुक कराने हेतु धनराशि लगभग 10,58,000/-रू० प्रत्‍यर्थी अंसल प्रापर्टीज एण्‍ड इंफ्रास्‍ट्रक्‍चर्स लि0 को वर्ष 2009 से वर्ष 2012 के मध्‍य प्राप्‍त करायी गयी परन्‍तु  बाकी  की  देय  धनराशि

-3-

अपीलार्थिनी द्वारा प्राप्‍त न कराए जाने के कारण आवंटित यूनिट त्रृतीय पक्ष/खरीददार को विक्रय की गयी।

अपीलार्थिनी द्वारा प्रत्‍यर्थी को उपरोक्‍त धनराशि प्राप्‍त करायी गयी जो प्रत्‍यर्थी कम्‍पनी द्वारा प्रयोग की गयी है, अतएव न्‍याय हित में अपीलार्थिनी को उपरोक्‍त जमा धनराशि पर ब्‍याज की गणना करते हुए प्रत्‍यर्थी कम्‍पनी से ब्‍याज दिलाया जाना उचित प्रतीत होता है जिस हेतु अपीलार्थिनी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता द्वारा भी न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख प्रार्थना की गयी।  

उभय-पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ताद्व्‍य की सहमति से प्रस्‍तुत अपील को अंतिम रूप से निस्‍तारित किये जाने हेतु दिनांक 10-06-2022 को सूचीबद्ध करने हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है। पक्षकारों के अधिवक्‍तागण ने प्रार्थना की कि वे अगली नियत तिथि पर जमा/प्राप्‍त धनराशि, प्राप्ति की तिथि से देयता की तिथि तक कल अर्थात दिनांक 09-06-2022 तक की गणना 10 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज की दर से करते हुए विवरण चार्ट इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख प्रस्‍तुत करेंगे। प्रत्‍यर्थी कम्‍पनी तदनुसार विवरण चार्ट में अंकित देय मूल धनराशि पर 10 प्रतिशत ब्‍याज की गणना उपरोक्‍तानुसार करके देय धनराशि का चेक अपीलार्थिनी रीता सिंह के पक्ष का इस न्‍यायालय में प्रस्‍तुत करेंगे।

प्रस्‍तुत अपील को पुन: सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 10-06-2022 को सूचीबद्ध किया जावे।‘’

उपरोक्‍त आदेश के अनुपालन में विपक्षी कम्‍पनी के विद्धान अधिवक्‍ता द्वारा  चेक प्रस्‍तुत किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी।

चूंकि अपीलार्थी के विद्धान अधिवक्‍ता श्री उमेश कुमार श्रीवास्‍तव एवं श्री सुबीर सरकार आज उपस्थित नहीं हैं जिनकी ओर से श्री समर सिंह सहायक अधिवक्‍ता उपस्थित आए और प्रार्थना की, कि उनके सीनियर अधिवक्‍तागण श्री उमेश कुमार श्रीवास्‍तव एवं श्री सुबीर सरकार प्रस्‍तुत अपील में अपेक्षित विवरण चार्ट दिनांक 14-06-2022 को प्रस्‍तुत करेंगे तथा अगली तिथि पर उपस्थित होकर विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्‍तावित उपरोक्‍त चेक प्राप्‍त करेंगे। अत: प्रस्‍तुत अपील को सुनवाई हेतु नवीन वाद के पश्‍चात प्रथम वाद के रूप में दिनांक 14-06-2022 को सूचीबद्ध किया जावे।''

उपरोक्‍त आदेश के उपरान्‍त अपीलार्थी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री उमेश कुमार श्रीवास्‍तव उपस्थित हैं। अपीलार्थी/परिवादिनी श्रीमती रीता सिंह स्‍वयं भी उपस्थित हैं। प्रत्‍यर्थी सं01 की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री मानवेन्‍द्र प्रताप सिंह उपस्थित हैं। उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता द्व्‍य द्वारा न्‍याय पीठ के सम्‍मुख आदेश दिनांक 08.06.2022  

-4-

एवं आदेश दिनांक 10.06.2022 के अनुपालन में प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी द्वारा कुल देय धनराशि (मूल धनराशि एवं ब्‍याज 10 प्रतिशत की गणना के अनुसार) अपीलार्थी/परिवादिनी के अनुसार 23,29,203/-रू0 आंकलित की गयी एवं विवरण चार्ट प्रस्‍तुत किया गया एवं 22,43,994/-रू0 प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी बिल्‍डर के अनुसार मूल धनराशि एवं 10% ब्‍याज की  देयता के सम्‍बन्‍ध में विवरण चार्ट प्रस्‍तुत किया गया।

हमारे द्वारा उपरोक्‍त विवरण चार्ट का परिशीलन किया गया, जिसके उपरान्‍त यह पाया गया कि प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी द्वारा विवरण चार्ट में अंकित कुल धनराशि 46,335/-रू0 ‘सर्विस टैक्‍स’ के मद में डिडक्‍ट/काटी गयी है, जिसके कारण प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी द्वारा की गयी गणना में कम धनराशि की देयता अंकित की गयी।

उल्‍लेखनीय है कि माननीय राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा CONSUMER CASE NO. 1401 OF 2016 JAYPEE KOVE BUYERS ASSOCIATION Versus JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED & Ors. में पारित निर्णय दिनांकित 30.05.2022 में                माननीय सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 17.12.2021 Civil Appeal No. 1779/2021 Brigade Enterprises Limited Versus Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. के निम्‍न तथ्‍यों का विवेचन अंकित किया गया:-

“It was also submitterd that Complainant No. 7, Complainant No. 16 and Complainant No. 33 have booked more than one Unit in the Project, while some of the Complainants are residing far, like Denmark, Abu Dhabi, Jharkhand, Haryana and they have not mentioned in their Complaint that they are presently residing in rented house and have not disclosed the purpose of booking of the Unit, Complainant No. 46 in a Company M/s. Agarwal Agencies Ltd, therefore, booked the Units only for investment & financial benefit purpose, thus, they cannot be termed as Consumers under the Act; some of

-5-

the Complainants have defaulted in making the payment as per payment plan opted by them as such they have breached the terms and conditions of Allotment and thus, do not have any right to file the instant Complaint and the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also stated that as per Standard Terms and Conditions, in case of force majeure events, the OP Developer is entitled to extension of time without incurring any liability. However, in case of delay the Complainants are not entitled more than the liquidated damages in form of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. in terms of Clause 7.1 of the respective Standard Terms and Conditions. It was further stated that the delay has occurred in the Project due to Farmer’s Agitation; Gvernment’s decision to not to handover the Noida-Greater Noida Expressway for collecting the toll, which resulted in substantial loss of revenue to OP Developer; Restriction by NGT restraining all the Builders of Noida and Greater Noida from extracting any quantity of underground water for the purpose of construction and economic slow-down.

It was also submitted that the OP Developer is in financial crisis as in compliance of the Order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to protect the interests of the Homebuyers who have purchased the Flats in the Projects of JIL, a subsidiary company of OP Developer, against whom Moratorium has been issued under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, deposited a sum of Rs.750/- Crore with the Registry of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its final Judgment in ‘Chitra Sharma vs. Union of India’ reported

-6-

in (2018) 18 SCC 575, directed  that  the  said  amount  of Rs.750/- Crores be transferred to the Adjudicating Authority and continue to remain invested under the supervision and direction of the Adujdicating Authority. It was submitted that the controversy pertaining to the said Rs750 Crores is still pending adjudication before the NCLT, New Delhi pursuant to the Judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ‘Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association vs. NBCC Ltd. & Ors.’ Reported in 2021 SCC online SC53.

I have heard Mr. Sonam Sharma, learned Counsel for the Complainants, Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the OP Developer, perused the material available on record and have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties.

For the reasons stated in the Application IA No. 1010/2020, the present Order will apply only to the Complainants, who have approached this Commisison by way of the present Complaint or have got themselves impleaded in the instant Consumer Complaint.IA No. 1010/2020 stands disposed off in above terms.

The contention of the OP Developer that some Complainants have booked more than one Unit in the Project; while some Complainants are residing far and the Unit has also been booked by a Company M/s. Agarwal Agencies Ltd., therefore, booked the subject Units for earning profits  is  completely  unsustainable  in  the  light  of   the

-7-

judgement of this Commsission in Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31, in which the principle laid down is that the onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Party, which in the instant case they had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish their case. Therefore we are of the considered view that the Complainants are ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act.

As far as the pleas that some of the Complainants defaulted in making timely payment as per payment plan chosen by them, which ceased them to file the present complaint, is concerned, the OP Builder could have exercised options available under the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Application Form either to cancel the Agreement or charge delay interest. The OP Builder cannot take shelter under the lame excuse that the Complainant defaulted in making payment which ceased them to file the present Complaint.

The contention of the OP Developer that they have closed the Allotment of some of the Complainants on their request of cancellation, does not hold water because it has not been made clear wheter the deposited amount by the said Complainants has been refunded or not. If the amounts deposited by the said Complainants are not refunded, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Developer because after accepting the request of cancellation

-8-

the OP Developer cannot sleep over the matter for a long time. It is the duty and responsibility of the OP Developer to refund the amount to the said Complainants within a reasonable time. In the instant case, when the Project has not taken off, the OP Developer is duty bound to refund the amount to the said Complainants along with appropriate interest.

The next contention of OP Developer is that the present Complaint is not maintainable as during the pendency of the Complaint some of the Complainants had filed Complaint before UPRERA. The Doctrine of Election is applicable in the present case, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s. Imperia Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and Anr.” Reported in 2020 10 SCC 783, in which it has been held that it is always open to a person either to approach the fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 or to approach any other Authority under Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 or NCLT under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for redressal of his grievance. The person who has approached to any of the Authorities referred to above, at the first instance, is estopped from approaching other two Authorities as Doctrine of Election applies. Admittedly, in the present case, the Complainants have filed the present Complaint before this Commission in the year 2017, whereas some of the Complainants had approached to the RERA in the year 2020. Thus, strictly speaking the Doctrine of Election has to be applied and the present Complaint is maintainable before this Commission.

-9-

So far as the contention that the Project delayed due to Farmers’ Agitation and the Government Policy is concerned, it is the dispute between OP Developer and Government and for that the innocent Complainants, who have deposited their hard-earned money with the OP Developer to have a dream house, cannot be made victim. I do not find any force in this contention and the same is rejected.

As far as the plea of the learned Counsel for the OP Developer that the Complainants are bound by the terms of the Standard Terms and Conditions and they are liable to compensate the Complainant for delay in terms of Clause 7.2 of the Standard Terms and Conditions, we have gone through various clauses of the Standard Terms and Conditions. For example, Clause 5.6 and 7.1 of the Standard Terms And Conditions reads as under:-

“5.6 Notwithstanding anything stated herein and without prejudice Company’s right to cancel the Provisional Allottment or to refuse execution of the Indenture of Conveyance by JSIL, as provided herein, and without, in any manner condoning nay delay in payment of Consideration and other dues, the Allottee shall be liable to make payment of interest of the rate of 18% per annum on the outstanding amounts of Consideration and other dues from the dues date(s) upto their payment or cancellation of the Provisional Allotment. The payment made by the Allottee shall first be adjusted against and/or any penalty, if any due from the Allottee to the JSIL under the terms herein and the balance available, if any, shall be appropriated against the installment(s) due form the

-10-

Allottee under the Standard Terms & Conditions and the Provisional Allotment Letter.

7.1  Nothing contained herein shall be construed to give rise to any right to a claim by way of compensation/damages/loss of profit or consequential losses against the Company/JSIL on account of delay in handing over possession for any of the aforesaid conditions beyond the control of the Company/JSIL. If however the Company/JSIL fails to deliver possession of the Said Premises within the stipulated period as mentioned herein above, and within the further grace period of 90 (Ninety) days thereafter, the Applicant shall be entitled to a discount in Consideration for delay thereafter @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. (Rs.54/- per sq. mtr.) per month for the Super Area of the Said Premises (“Rebate”). The time consumed by the occurrences of Force Majeure Event shall be excluded while computing the time delay for the delivery of possession of the Said Premises.

A bare perusal of above Clauses makes it clear that as per Clause 7.2 of the Standard Terms and Conditions, in case of delay the Opposite Party Developer is liable to pay Rs.5/- per sq. ft., whereas in terms of Clause 5.6 in case of late payment, the Complainants/Buyers are liable to pay interest @18% p.a. This shows that the Standard Terms and Conditions are wholly one-sided and unfair. Therefore, the Complainants cannot be made bound to the Standard Terms and Conditions, which are one-sided and unfair in the light of the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex  Court  in  Pioneer

-11-

Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, II (2019) CPJ 34 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:

“6.7 A terms 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 08.05.2012 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(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

7.   In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

It is not in dispute that the Complainants had booked their respective Units witht the OP Developer between the year 2010 to 2012 and the agreed period of handing over the Possession was 42 months, i.e., between 2014 to 2016. But the Project could not take off and there is no possibility of giving possession of the Units by the OP Developer in the near future. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC), has observed as hereunder:

-12-

“…………………..it would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the Opposite Party, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified.”

In the instant case also the Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the Units. As a period of more than 12 years has lapsed from the date of allotment and the Project is still incomplete, we are of the considered view that the Complainants are entitled for refund of the respective deposited amount along with reasonable interest.

During the course of proceedings, learned Counsel Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the OP Developer relied upon the various Orders passed by RERA and submitted that the Project has not taken off and the  OP  Developer  is  ready  to  refund  the

-13-

amount to the Complainants alongwith interest @8% p.a. preferably within one year.

Keeping in view the catena of Judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded interest @9% p.a. on the deposited amount, the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the OP Developer is not acceptable.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the OP Developer is directed to refund the entire deposited amount to the respective Complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till the date of payment within a period of 3 months from today, failing which the rate of interest shall increase from 9% p.a. to 10% p.a.

However, it is made clear in the event if any Complainant(s) has taken Housing Loan from the Banks/Financial Institutions then the Complainant(s) shall first repay the entire outstanding amount to the Banks/Financial Institution and after repaying the due amount, balance amount shall be used for their self purpose.

The Consumer Complaint is partly allowed in above terms. The pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.”

माननीय सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय द्वारा निर्णीत अपील के उपरोक्‍त तथ्‍यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए माननीय राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा परिवाद              संख्‍या-1401/2016 स्‍वीकृत करते हुए निम्‍न निर्णय/आदेश पारित किया गया:-   

     “Respectfully following the judgement passed by this Commission in the case of  Mrs.  Mamta  Maurya  (Supra) I

-14-

partly allow the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant Association on behalf of its Members and direct the Opposite Party Developer to refund the entire amounts deposited by the Members of the Complainant Association alongwith simple interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till the date of actual payment together with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the each of the Members of Complainant Association, within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of this order failing amount the amount shall attract interest @ 10% p.a. for the same period. However, it is made clear that the Members of the Complainant Association who had already settled the matter with the Opposite Party Developer shall not be entitled for any benefit under the aforesaid directions. So far as, the Members of the Complainant Association who had obtained the home loan from the Financial Institutions, is concerned, they must clear their outstanding loan first and then utilized the balance amount for their own use.

     The Consumer Complaint is allowed in above terms. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

हमारे द्वारा माननीय राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा पारित उपरोक्‍त निर्णय              दिनांकित 30.05.2022 का सन्‍दर्भ ग्रहण किया गया, जिसमें जो तथ्‍य अंकित किये गये लगभग वैसे ही समान तथ्‍य प्रस्‍तुत अपील में भी पाये गये तथा यह स्‍पष्‍टत: पाया गया कि माननीय राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा बिल्‍डर जयप्रकाश एसोसिएट लि0 के सम्‍मुख उपभोक्‍ताओं/आवंटियों द्वारा जमा सम्‍पूर्ण धनराशि पर 09 प्रतिशत ब्‍याज की देयता के साथ मूल धनराशि वापस प्राप्‍त कराये जाने हेतु आदेशित किया, साथ ही शिकायतकर्ता सभी होम बायर्स को 50,000-50,000/-रू0 का मुआवजा भी दिये जाने हेतु बिल्‍डर जयप्रकाश एसोसिएट लि0 को आदेशित किया।

-15-

उपरोक्‍त वाद में माननीय राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा यह भी आदेशित किया कि यदि उपरोक्‍त निर्णय एवं आदेश का अनुपालन बिल्‍डर जयप्रकाश एसोसिएट लि0 द्वारा सुनिश्चित नहीं किया जावेगा तब बिल्‍डर के सम्‍मुख शिकायतकर्ता सभी होम बायर्स द्वारा जमा रकम पर 10 प्रतिशत की दर से बिल्‍डर द्वारा ब्‍याज भी देय होगा। 

प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री मानवेन्‍द्र प्रताप सिंह द्वारा अपीलार्थी/परिवादिनी श्रीमती रीता सिंह को इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख दो चेक, चेक संख्‍या-109976 एवं चेक संख्‍या-109977 दिनांकित 14.06.2022 पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, चारबाग, लखनऊ कुल धनराशि 10,57,954/-रू0 एवं 11,85,994/-रू0 (ब्‍याज की गणना के अनुसार) के प्राप्‍त कराये।

चूँकि प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी द्वारा उपरोक्‍त देय धनराशि में सर्विस टैक्‍स के मद में कुल धनराशि 46,335/-रू0 काटी गयी है, जिसके             विरूद्ध प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी की ओर से उपस्थित विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता    श्री मानवेन्‍द्र प्रताप सिंह द्वारा स्‍वेच्‍छा से कम्‍पनी से प्राप्‍त एक चेक, चेक संख्‍या-109978 दिनांकित 14.06.2022 पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, चारबाग, लखनऊ कुल धनराशि 50,000/-रू0 का अपीलार्थी/परिवादिनी श्रीमती रीता सिंह को इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख प्राप्‍त कराया।

समस्‍त तथ्‍यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए तथा यह कि माननीय राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा पारित निर्णय दिनांक 30.05.2022 में परिवादीगण को हर्जाने के मद में 50,000/-रू0 की धनराशि भी प्रदान किये जाने हेतु आदेशित किया है, अतएव प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी को अपीलार्थी/परिवादिनी के पक्ष में हर्जाने के रूप में 50,000/-रू0 की धनराशि प्राप्‍त कराये जाने हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है, जिस हेतु प्रत्‍यर्थी/विपक्षी कम्‍पनी की ओर से उपस्थित विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री मानवेन्‍द्र प्रताप सिंह द्वारा स्‍वेच्‍छा से कम्‍पनी से प्राप्‍त एक चेक, चेक संख्‍या-109979 दिनांकित 14.06.2022 पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, चारबाग, लखनऊ कुल धनराशि 50,000/-रू0 का अपीलार्थी/परिवादिनी श्रीमती रीता सिंह को इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख प्राप्‍त कराया।

-16-

तद्नुसार प्रस्‍तुत अपील पक्षकारों द्वारा अन्तिम रूप से प्राप्‍त/देय धनराशि की देयता/प्राप्‍तता होने के परिप्रेक्ष्‍य में अन्तिम रूप से निस्‍तारित की जाती है।

आशुलिपि‍क से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि‍ वह इस निर्णय/आदेश को आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।

      (न्‍यायमूर्ति अशोक कुमार)                (विकास सक्‍सेना)      

              अध्‍यक्ष                          सदस्‍य       

जितेन्‍द्र आशु0

कोर्ट नं0-1