BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2014
Date of institution: 17.04.2014
Date of Decision: 12.08.2014
Jatinder Kumar Handa, resident of House No.505/C-2, CGEWHO, Kendria Vihar, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Central Govt. Employees Welfare Housing Organization, Sixth Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001 through its CEO.
2. CGEWHO Housing Project/Scheme (Phase-1), Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, Mohali- 140301 (Punjab) through its Project Manager Shri Bant Singh.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri V.K. Khanna, Member.
Present: Shri J.S. Kahlon, counsel for the complainant.
Shri R.C.Sharma, counsel for the OPs.
(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)
ORDER
According to the complainant, the Central Govt. Employee Welfare Housing Organization is a ‘Society’ established to promote, control and coordinate the development of housing schemes at selected places all over India. The opposite parties (for short ‘the OPs’) vide notice Ex.C-1 floated a scheme for allotment of residential flats under the name and style of ‘Kendriya Vihar, Mohali’. The OPs intended to allot four categories of Flats i.e. A, B, C and D for which eligibility was laid down under the rules. The cost of the respective dwelling units was projected as Rs.10.12 lacs, Rs.16.50 lacs, Rs.23.00 lacs and Rs.27.60 lacs respectively. The complainant also applied for a residential flat with the OPs in their project known as ‘Kendriya Vihar, Mohali’ and gave cheque for booking amount of the flat. The OPs sent allotment letter Ex.C-2. Thereafter, as per the allotment letter, the 2nd installment was to be paid upon only on commencement of construction, and the same was called upon by the OPs for payment vide letter dated 23.05.2007. Thereafter, the OPs issued circular dated 15.12.2008 Ex.C-4 informing the complainant regarding technical details and that the plans of the project have been approved by the Local Mohali authority and a technical consultant had now been appointed. The OPs also mentioned in Ex.C-4 regarding increase in area which demonstrates that the construction commenced in December, 2008. Thus the demand of 2nd installment in May, 2007 was wrongly made. The amount of Rs.3,45,000/- towards second installment was paid by the complainant on 03.10.2007 which remained with the OPs till 30.07.2008. The OPs have adjusted interest of Rs.19,320/- arbitrarily whereas it should have been Rs.42,500/- @ 15% which the OPs charge from the beneficiaries. The OPs kept on demanding the installments through notices from time to time by wrongly mentioning the percentage of completion of work but did not complete the construction within the promised time of 30 months. As per the brochure the construction was to start from mid of 2007 and was to complete in 30 months. The flats are not even complete or livable today. The complainant has been forced to stay in rented accommodation. The OPs also held draw at Mohali on 30th /31st March, 2013 for allotment of specific flat/floor and car parking. The complainant continued to deposit the due installments as per the schedule and demand by the OPs. The complainant received Final Call letter dated 18.09.2013 Ex.C-8 alongwith circular of the same date Ex.C-9 from the OPs regarding offer of possession. The OPs are demanding certain amounts which are not payable. The cost of the dwelling unit has been wrongly worked out because the OPs are adding the cost/expenses occurring due to delay on their part. The complainant cannot be penalized for the delay on the part of the OPs. There is no permanent electricity connection granted to the project and even the parking slots are not final. The OPs have charged for the parking which they are supposed to give free alongwith the dwelling units. Thus, the offer of possession is symbolic and not real. The OPs have said that the electricity would be provided through DG sets to the bare minimum extent and ACs, Geysers, heaters would not be able to be used. The offer of possession could only be given after occupation certificate is granted by the Local Authorities which is nowhere in sight in the present case. The OPs are forcing the complainant to pay amounts which are illegal and not payable. There is High Tension Wire passing just above the building, housing the allotted flats which pose a great risk to the life of the beneficiaries. Thus there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
With these allegations, directions have been sought to the OPs to keep in abeyance the demand raised vide letter dated 18.09.2013 till the grant of permanent electricity connection and occupation certificate by the relevant authority; to withdraw all the illegal demands of money and to pay to each complainant Rs.3.00 lacs for monetary loss, mental and physical harassment; to pay interest on the amounts deposited till date grant of occupation certificate; to pay interest @ 15% per annum on Rs.18,01,190/ deposited by the complainant from January, 2011 till 23.01.2014; to pay interest @ 15% and not 6.5% on second installment amounting to Rs.3,45,000/- kept lying with the OP from 03.10.2007 to 30.07.2008; to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deterrent and punitive damages and Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. In the joint written statement, the OPs have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the CGEWHO has been set up as a welfare measure and is not in any manner a realtor or developer in the business of profit making or generating funds and the consumer complaint is not maintainable. The project site does not create territorial jurisdiction as the project cannot be considered as branch office. The projects completed by the CGEWHO are handed over to the beneficiaries exclusively and maintenance of the common services are handed over by forming apartment owners associations which takes care of the entire property and the CGEWHO is left with no role except to ensure the compliance to the local laws and regulations by the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were required to pay the first installment towards cost of land which is assessed to be about 30% of the total cost of the dwelling units. The project at Mohali is on Turnkey Contract Method, copy of information of which is Ex.OP-2. The complainants have given their respective affidavit Ex.OP-3/A agreeing to the applicable Rules and terms of the CGEWHO. The complainant has erroneously arrayed the OP No.2 as the same is neither a branch office nor has the distinct legal entity and has been arrayed just to falsely create territorial jurisdiction. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The cost of the dwelling unit was conveyed to the complainant subject to escalation and revision of cost is to be charged as per clause 16 of the brochure. It was never given to understand to the complainant that the estimated cost was the final figure. The OPs have always acted in fair and transparent manner. As and when the OPs had to incorporate changes in terms of increase in area or escalation of cost, the beneficiaries were given option of withdrawal from the scheme vide letter dated 22.06.2011 and 25.08.2011 Ex.OP-4. No beneficiary has opted for the refund with interest showing that they are satisfied with the housing project. Now the complainant is trying to evade the liability of reasonable escalation despite being aware that initially the projected cost was tentative. The OPs are not selling any product for gain but are providing welfare service and are facilitating the beneficiaries in realizing their dream of owning a home at the place of their choice. The complainant has paid the cost of execution only, on self finance basis, as such, the complainant do not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
On merits, it is pleaded that the project was conceived on Turnkey Contract Method. The insinuation, that scheme was promoted before grant of license, is unfounded and unsustainable. There is no objective of the OPs to collect money except for the construction of housing project. The projects of the OPs are based on demand and requirement only and on no profit basis. No final and concrete promises were made to any of the beneficiary and only tentative details of the project were provided. The beneficiaries were well aware of the progress of the project and the delay, if any, is on account of getting requisite approval from the local authorities which is beyond the control of the OPs. Allotment letters can only be issued after approval of plans which took time at the end of local authorities. In the circular dated 15.12.2008 it was specifically mentioned that the area of dwelling unit was modified as per requirement of the authority competent to approve the plan. In view of certain changes, vide this circular an offer was given to each beneficiary for opting to withdraw from the scheme but the complainant did not opt to withdraw from the scheme. The elected representative of apartment owners association was member of the Project Monitoring Committee whose meeting was held on 19.03.2012. The increase in the cost is as per the technical specifications duly circulated vide letter dated 15.12.2008. The complainant has concealed the letter dated 22.06.2011 issued to all the beneficiaries wherein the detailed reasons for cost escalation were given and again offer for withdrawal from the scheme was made which was kept open for 45 days but no beneficiary including the complainant opted for withdrawal. The electricity connections are to be applied by the individual beneficiary to PSPCL and the OPs have no control over the same. An E-mail in this regard has been sent to the beneficiaries who have taken over the possession. It is not the case that electricity connection is not being provided by the PSPCL for want of electric work in the dwelling unit. The completion certificate of Phase 1 of the project has already been procured by the OPs. The project being on self financing scheme, the cost of the covered car parking would be separately provided. Many beneficiaries have already taken over possession for all practical purposes. The energization of transformers of the housing complex is to be done by PSPCL. The Chief Electrical Inspector Govt. of Punjab has also given clearance for energisation. High tension wires are not passing above the flats and distance much more than the specified limit is maintained from main power line. The construction plan has been approved by the authorities by considering the topographical details at the site. Denying any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-9.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Ms. Anju Arora, AAO of the OPs Ex.OP-1/1 & documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-9.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. Before we go into the merits of the complaint it will be appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the OPs. The first preliminary objection is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and adjudicate the present complaints on the ground that as per the brochure Ex.OP-3 of the housing scheme, all legal suits and proceedings against the OPs are to be instituted only in the appropriate courts of New Delhi and notwithstanding the location of the property which may be the subject matter of the dispute. In support of this objection, the OPs have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Swastik Gases Private Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation. To counter the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction, the complainants have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court India in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, 2010 (1) RCR( Civil) 1 and Cosmos Infr Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & Others, Revision Petition Nos. 3117 & 3247, 3254 of 2012 decided on 12.12.2012 (Hon’ble National Commission) wherein it has been held that the branch office of the OPs and the relief sought in the complaint should have direct and complete nexus to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer forum in the territory of which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaints, the project of the OPs is situated at Mohali, the draw of lots of specific allotment of flats in question has taken place at Mohali. The OPs have project site office at Mohali. All the Project Monitoring Committee meetings of the project are held at Mohali. After meeting the requirements of the demand notices i.e. Ex.C-8 & C-9, the OPs expect the complainants to take the possession of the flats situated at Mohali. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainants at Mohali and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaints as the complainants have rightly impleaded OP No.2 in the array of OPs. Therefore, as contended by the complainants we are in full agreement with them and the objection of territorial jurisdiction as raked up by the OPs is not maintainable.
7. The second preliminary objection is that the complaint is not maintainable as the OPs is a no profit no loss body and, therefore, the services provided by them do not fall under the definition of services as enshrined under the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard we have perused the records and found that OPs have not produced anything on record to this averment as no document/statement of account/balance sheet has been produced on record. Even otherwise no profit no loss body is not exempted from the purview of Consumer Protection Act as there are number of judgments on this issue where even the charitable hospitals have been held liable for deficiency in service by the superior Foras. The only requirement under the Act is that there should be a payment made by the complainant to the OP for rendering services as a service provider. The housing activity has been specifically covered under the definition of service in the Consumer Protection Act. The OPs have admittedly accepted the consideration for the flats as per the allotment letters Ex.C-2. Therefore, complainants being consumers and the OPs being service provider are covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaints are maintainable. Therefore, the objection of the OPs on this account is not maintainable.
8. Now on merits, admittedly the complainant is allottee of the Flat. The issue involved in the present complaint is regarding delay in completion of the project and handing over the complete and effective possession of the flat in question. The allotment letter Ex.C-2 clearly shows that the project will be complete within 30 months meaning thereby that from May 2007 the time period of 30 months would have expired on 30.11.2009. Admittedly, by this time the possession of the flat in question has not been handed over to the complainant. As per Ex.C-4, the OPs have for the first time provided the technical brochure of Mohali Phase-I project giving all the pertinent details of the project and dwelling units and this is for the first time they have made a revelation that the project had been approved by the local authority. Therefore, vide Ex.C-4 a demand for payment of second installment has been raised by the OPs. Perusal of Ex.C-4 dated 15.12.2008 shows that there is no commitment of time frame for completion of the project and offer of possession. Even if we take 30 months period for completion of construction and handing over the possession from 15.12.2008 when the OPs have got the approval from Local Authority, the said period of 30 months expires on 15.06.2011 and admittedly by this time there was no whisper of offer of possession from the side of the OPs as the project was not completed by then. A perusal of Ex.C-6 i.e. the minutes of the meeting dated 19.03.2012 held under the Chairmanship of Chief Executive Officer as well as representatives of the allottees shows that though there is good progress in the execution work but the project is still not complete and many defects pointed out by the members are yet to be removed. However, even after the meeting dated 19.03.2012 till 25.04.2013 the project is not complete and the Ops could get only partial completion certificate for site-II & III of the project whereas the flat of the complainant falls in Site-I as is evident from allotment letter Ex.C-2. Thus, the project is still not complete and the act of the OPs in offering defective possession and that too at a belated stage after the expiry of promised 30 months from either way i.e. from Ex.C-2 dated 26.03.2007 and Ex.C-4 dated 15.12.2008 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the complainant has been successful in proving the contention on the basis of evidence adduced and appreciated above. Further the perusal of Ex.C-9 shows that the possession will be given to the complainant by January 2014 or within one month of energisation of the transformer by the PSPCL whichever is later. Meaning thereby that still the date of possession is indefinite and this arbitrary act of non committal of actual date of possession on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.
9. Further the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in time and again enhancing the tentative price of the flat in question and the same still not finally determined by the OPs as is evident from Ex.C-9. That as per original allotment letter the cost of the flat has been indicated as tentative and the cost was not disputed by the complainants at the initial stage. However, the OPs have voluntarily and arbitrarily chosen to change the price time and again and enhanced the price without giving any valid and cogent reasons. So much so, even today, as is evident from Ex.C-8 & C-9 the actual cost of flat has not been determined by the OPs and this act of the OPs to increase the price every now and then amounts to deficiency in service. In support of his contention, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon Deputy Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board and another Vs. Rakesh Kumar Avasthi, Revision Petition No.2340 of 2012 decided on 17.08.2012 (Hon’ble National Commission) and Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Krishan Kumar Bishnoi, Revision Petition No.2917 of 2012 decided on 21.02.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission. In order to counter the arguments of escalation, the counsel for the Ops has brought our attention to Ex.C-5 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that execution of the project, however, suffered due to unavoidable circumstances and, therefore, the escalation being paid to the construction agency shall be based on whole sale price indices and labour wages indices which have been frozen on the original contractual date of completion only. Counsel for the OPs contends that the same cannot be alleged to be deficiency in service as the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 322 wherein it has been held that the developing authority has the right to allot the plot at a tentative price and further can fix the actual price after keeping in view all the attending circumstances. Further the Hon’ble National Commission has passed orders from time to time wherein it has been held that the Consumer Fora cannot go into pricing dispute of the flat/house and the interest charged includes the price of the house leading to escalation. In support of his contention the counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kamini Chopra I (1996) CPJ 285; Delhi Development Authority Vs. A.N. Sehgal, decided on 30.10.1995; P. Gopala Subramaniam Vs. Vice Chairman, A.P.H.B. Hyderabad, II (1995) CPJ 162 and Sarthak Behura and another Vs. Orissa State Housing Board and Another, III (1993) CPJ 384 and further rendered by the Hon’ble State Commission Orissa in the case Orissa State Housing Board Vs. Rama Chandra Choudhury, IV (2009) CPJ 514. Perusal of Ex.C-4 still does not reveal any time frame for completion of the project and even though the escalation has been frozen on the original contractual date of completion only will not bring any relief to the complainant as such an open ended date of completion cannot be left to eternity and the consumer has for no reasons to bear the escalation cost for the delays caused by the OPs or its agents. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of delay in delivery by invoking the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act for redressal of their complaints. In this regard we seek the shelter of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, 2007 CTJ 689 (SC) wherein the principles have been laid down. The relevant para 10 (d) is reproduced here below:
“Though the relationship between Development Authority and an applicant for allotment is that of a seller and buyer, and therefore governed by law of contracts, (which does not recognize mental agony and suffering as a head of damages for breach), compensation can be awarded to the consumer under the head of mental agony and suffering, by applying the principle of Administrative Law, where the seller being a statutory authority acts negligently, arbitrarily or capriciously.”
10. Further specific issue regarding the high tension wire passing through Phase-I has been discussed in Clause 12 of the Minutes wherein the technical directorate of the Project Monitoring Committee was required to examine the issue. The issue of high tension wire admittedly still persists. In this regard the contention of the OPs is that the high tension wires are not passing over the flats and the distance is much more than the specified limit and which is being maintained from the main power line. Ex.OP-7 i.e. the lay out plan of Phase-II shows that the main power line in the area is located at a distance more than the minimum prescribed distance by the PSPCL. However, the Ops have not adduced any document to show as to what is the minimum prescribed distance approved by the PSPCL for location of the high tension wires and further no site plan/lay out plan has been produced on record to show that the said high tension wires are as per the prescribed limits. The counsel for the complainant has further stated that it is the duty of the OPs to remove the high tension wire so as to ensure that there is no danger to the life of the residents and in case the complainants are not coming forward to seek the possession of the flat in question, they are justified in doing so as the existence of high tension wire is definitely a threat and danger to their life. In support of this contention, the complainant has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, CWP No.18773 of 2010 decided on 04.03.2013. Thus, an adverse inference in this regard is drawn against the OPs.
11. Another issue of non availability/reduction in number of covered parking facility has been alleged to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As per the complainant, the overhead high tension wire is going above the parking space and the PSPCL has raised an objection to the same and the said objection is yet to be removed by the OPs. This factum is well admitted by the OPs as is evident from Ex.C-9 dated 18.09.2013 Para-3 which reads as below:
‘There may be a possibility of reduction in number of covered parking on account of direction from the PSPCL.”
During the course of arguments it has emerged that the number of covered parking slot has been reduced at the instance of PSPCL which raised an objection on the layout plan showing covered parking under the high tension wires. The admission on this account per se amounts to deficiency in service as the original lay out plan has not been prepared with due care and consideration of the factual ground situation existing at the site. It is only at the later stage when PSPCL has raised the objection the OPs have woken up to this fact and removed the defect by reducing the number of covered car parking. In fact the complainants were given the understanding at the time of applying through the brochure that sufficient number of covered car parking space is available which gave the complainant an additional amenity to opt for applying for the said flat. However, the assurance of the complainant turned out to be false. In order to counter the contention of the complainant, the OPs made another attempt to convince this Forum that the reduction in number of car parking is detrimental to the interest of the complainant as covered car parking facility is not free of cost and is available to the applicants on payment on the basis of draw of lots. So, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part. The counsel for the complainant has further advanced his arguments on the ground that though it is a paid facility but with the reduction in number of covered car parking, their right to apply and be successful in the draw of lots has been abrogated/reduced qua the reduction of number in covered car parking. Thus, as has been admitted by the OPs themselves regarding the reduction in the number of covered car parking, the act of the OPs in doing so amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
12. Thus the allegation of deficiency in service qua the parking facility in the project is well proved by the complainant.
13. As per the offer of possession Ex.C-9 dated 18.09.2013 the OPs themselves have admitted that there is no permanent electricity connection from PSPCL and till such approval is granted by the PSPCL the flat owners will be provided electricity through DG Set and that too not sufficient power to run ACs, Heaters and Geysers. Thus, in the absence of any approval from the electricity department regarding permanent electricity connection, the offer of possession per se is defective and is merely symbolic and constructive and not effective which will deprive the complainant to have peaceful enjoyment of his property despite having paid more than 70% of the price of the flat in question. Of course the OPs have tried to convince this Forum by adducing Ex.OP-5 to show that a notice has been issued to the beneficiaries to approach the PSPCL for electricity connection to their respective flats. Thus by doing so the OPs have made an attempt to show that the individual connections are being provided to the flat owners, whosoever approaches them for release of such connection through the PSPCL. However, the perusal of Ex.OP-5 shows no reference to the PSPCL clearance to the project for applying for individual electricity connection. Therefore, in the absence of any official approval from the side of PSPCL on record in favour of the OPs, Ex.OP-5 at the best be treated as internal document of the OPs and not a cogent evidence to show that the basic amenity of electricity is in place in the project where the offer of possession is being made to the complainants. Thus by withholding the parent document i.e. any official approval by the PSPCL in favour of the OPs regarding power connection clearance in favour of the OPs, that being the primary document, merely submission of Ex.OP-5 in the evidence will not give any evidentiary value or benefit to the OPs regarding the availability of basic amenity of electricity in place in the project at the time of filing of the complaints. The subsequent acts in this regard by the OPs per se prove the case of the complainant that is lack of basic amenity of official electricity power connection at the time of offer of possession to the complainant vide Ex.C-9. So, therefore, the offer of possession is defective document issued by the OPs to the complainants.
14. Therefore, we find the act of the OPs in offering delayed and defective possession vide Ex.C-9 without removal of high tension wires passing over the property of the complainant; non availability of the electricity connection through the PSPCL; reduction in number of covered parking space amounts to act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
15. Therefore, the demand notice Ex.C-8 dated 18.09.2013 for payment of 6th and final installment and cost of parking, without there being the amenities and facilities of electricity, parking space and safety of the life of the complainants without removing the high tension wires from the dwelling units, is illegal and arbitrary and further the defective offer of possession vide Ex.C-9 is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
16. Since the complainant has never been defaulter in making payment of the amount due upto 5th installment, the 6th installment being the last installment, the complainant is willing and ready to make the payments provided defect free possession with all amenities and facilities after getting due approval from the competent authority is put in place by the OPs, till then the demand notice Ex.C-8 and offer of possession Ex.C-9 are illegal defective and needs to be recalled by the OPs. The OPs have failed to adduce any evidence to show that the offer of possession is legal and effective with all facilities and amenities in place as promised in the technical brochure.
17. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OPs has brought to our notice that bunch of the complaints earlier filed by the allottees on the same subject matter have been decided by this Forum against which the appeal are pending before the Hon’ble State Commission. In those appeals, the allottees have agreed to take possession of the flats in question after making due payment as per demand letters within a period of three months from the date of orders passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in their appeals. In that eventuality we leave it to the discretion of the complainants to take over possession of the flats after completion of due formalities.
18. Regarding another prayer of the complainant that on second installment amounting to Rs.3,45,000/- the OPs have given him the benefit of 6.5% rate of interest from 03.10.2007 to 30.07.2008 which comes to Rs.19,320/- whereas he is entitled to the interest @ 15% of the said deposited amount for the period under consideration which comes to Rs.42,500/-. Therefore, there is difference of Rs.23,180/- the benefit of which has not been granted to him while calculating the total outstanding amount due for recovery from the complainant by the OPs vide demand letter dated 18.09.2013 Ex.C-8.
19. In this regard we have already decided Consumer Complaint No.573 of 2013 and there is no reason of any deviation of our findings in that complaint in the present context. We hold that the complainant is entitled to the differential amount of Rs.23,180/- alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum w.e.f. 30.07.2008 till the date of taking over the possession of the flat by the complainant.
20. Undoubtedly there is a delay in handing over the effective possession to the complainants by the OPs and even today there is no tentative date for possession mentioned in Ex.C-9 and further as per Ex.C-8 and C-9 the price has not been finally determined, the facilities and amenities are not in place and there is no approval of the competent authority for sanctions is placed on record, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service which has caused mental agony and suffering to the complainants and deprive them of peaceful enjoyment of their property despite having paid a major chunk of the consideration amount.
21. It will be appropriate to highlight the acts of the OPs that despite a bunch of complaints having been decided by this Forum vide order dated 13.02.2014, the OPs have taken no steps whatsoever to bring on record the status report of the electricity connection as to whether the objections raised by the Electricity Department have been removed or not and if removed whether they have got the license from the Electricity Department in their favour. No such document showing either of the concerns raised in this regard in earlier orders has been placed on record even after a lapse of four months. Therefore, till date the OPs have not got the sanction of permanent electricity connection through 66 KVA transformers from the PSPCL, as envisaged in the scheme of housing floated by the OPs. This per se shows an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
22. Therefore, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the OPs:
(1) To withdraw the final call up letter Ex.C-8 & C-9 and issue the fresh letter of offer of possession indicating the details of approvals/sanctions obtained by the OPs from various authorities regarding the amenities/facilities in the project with the certificate that such facilities are in existence on the date of offer of fresh letter of possession.
(2) Till then not to charge any interest on the last demanded amount as per Ex.C-8 till payment in pursuance of the fresh demand notice for the same amount.
(3) to refund an amount of Rs.23,180/- (Rs. Twenty three thousand one hundred eighty only) alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from 31.07.2008 till the date of handing over possession of the flat to the complainant.
(4) To pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs. Two lacs twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment, tension and deprivation of enjoyment of his property.
(5) To pay of Rs.22,000/- (Rs. Twenty two thousand only) to the complainant towards costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Copies of this order be placed in the connected files. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
August 12, 2014. (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(V.K.Khanna)
Member
