Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/824/2016

Mrs. Kamal - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jagjeet Beniwal, Adv.

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	824 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Mrs. Kamal wife of Shri Sukhvir Singh Dalal, resident of Village Ghuskani, P.O. Tigrana, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

SITE ADDRESS:

 

   The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	819 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	17.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Rajdeep Singh Riar s/o Sh. Balraj Singh Riar r/o New Public School, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 2^nd  Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its authorized representative.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	820 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	17.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Baljit Singh Sandhu s/o Sh. Jasmer Singh Sandhu r/o #160, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its authorized representative.

..........Opposite Parties.

 

3. Angad S. Sandhu s/o Sh. Baljit Singh Sandhu r/o #160, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

……Performa Opposite Party.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	825 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Dharam Pal son of Shri Thandi Ram resident of flat No.9A, GH-10, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana through Power of Attorney Holder namely Shri Ajmer Singh son of Dharam Pal resident of Flat No.27, GH-1, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 5, Panchkula.

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

SITE ADDRESS:

 

   The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	828 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Sunil Rotha son of Chet Ram Rotha,
2. Kriti Rotha w/o Sunil Rotha,

Both are residents of VPO Baghi, Tehsil Kotkhai, Distt. Shimla.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

    SITE ADDRESS:

       The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	829 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Simarjit Kaur D/o Late Sh. Swarn Singh resident of House No.1578, Sector 21, Chandigarh.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

SITE ADDRESS:

 

   The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

 

Argued by:

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	874 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Brig. Surinder Singh Sidhu S/o Late Pratap Singh Sidhu, R/o #52, Mall Road, Near Army School, Mhow-453441, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Mrs. Mandeep Kaur W/o Brig. Surinder Singh Sidhu R/o #52, Mall Road, Near Army School, Mhow-453441, Madhya Pradesh.

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	875 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Col. Sukhpinder Singh Grewal (Retd.), S/o Balkarn Singh Grewal R/o House No.523, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana, India.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

..........Opposite Parties.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	877 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Mrs. Ranjana Tewari wife of Lt. Col. Deepak Krishan Tewari (Retd.) R/o D-70, Mystique Moods, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411 014.
2. Lt. Col. Deepak Krishan Tewari S/o Late Col. K. S. Tewari R/o D-704, Mystique Moods, Viman Nagar, Pune – 400 014.

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	901 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Jagjeet Singh Beniwal son of Shri Ram Kumar Beniwal resident of Flat No.8A, GH-10, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

SITE ADDRESS:

 

   The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Jagjeet Singh Beniwal, complainant in person.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	911 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Col. Rajesh Dogra S/o Sq. Ldr. T. S. Dogra, R/o H.No.10, Nalwa Road, Jalandhar Cantt. 144005.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	912 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Surender Singh Rathee S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh R/o Flat No.40C, Army flats, Sector – 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	913 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Anil Mehrotra S/o Late Sh. R. K. Mehrotra,
2. Amod Mehrotra S/o Anil Mehrotra,

Both R/o Flat No.A-703, Sukh Sagar Apartments, Plot No.12, Sector-9D, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110077.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	914 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

 

1. Vishal Gupta S/o Sh. Subhash Gupta,
2. Himani Goel W/o Vishal Gupta,

Both R/o 5455 Maple Hill Ave SE, Ada, MI 49301 USA,

Through Ashutosh Gupta (SPA) S/o Subhash Chand Gupta C/o M/s Subhash Chand Surinder Kumar, Hardware Merchants, Kalka-Shimla Road, Main Bazaar Dharampur, District Solan.

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	920 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Ramesh Chandra Arora S/o Late Sh. T. C. Arora R/o House No.452, Sector-7, Panchkula.
2. Vigyan Arora, S/o Sh. R. C. Arora R/o House No.452, Sector – 7, Panchkula.

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	922 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Maj. Gen. Harinder Singh son of Shri Gurnam Singh R/o HQ 28 INF Division, PIN – 908428 C/o 56 APO.
2. Mrs. Gurpreet Kaur wife of Maj. Gen. Harinder Singh R/o HQ 28 INF Division, PIN – 908428 C/o 56 APO.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	923 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Monika Rana W/o Maj. Atul Bali R/o Om Villa, Near HP Co-op Bank, Tehsil Shimla.

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	939 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Col. Lawinder Singh Raizada S/o Col. (Retd.) Partap Singh,
2. Rinku Rana W/o Col. Lawinder Singh Raizada,

Both R/o VOP Dangoli, Una.

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	943 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Sangeeta Aggarwal W/o Sh. Arvind Kr. Aggarwal R/o Flat No.1264/6, Near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Ambala City, Ambala.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	954 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Colonel Anil Chaudhary (now Major General) son of Ch. Inder Singh, resident of House No.L-173, Army Flats, Sector-4, MDC, Panchkula – 134109.
2. Anupama Chaudhary wife of Colonel Anil Chaudhary (now Major General), resident of House No.L-173, Army Flats, Sector-4, MDC, Panchkula – 134109.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-91-92, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director having its registered office at 12^th floor, DLF Gateway tower, DLF City, Phase-3, 104-8, Gurgaon, Haryana.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	955 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Col. Gurbrinder Singh Virk son of Shri Gurdeep Singh Virk r/o House No.5738, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
2. Paramjeet Kaur Virk w/o Col. Gurbrinder Singh Virk r/o House No.5738, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-91-92, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director having its registered office at 12^th floor, DLF Gateway tower, DLF City, Phase-3, 104-8, Gurgaon, Haryana.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	973 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Sudesh Nagpal W/o Sh. Ashok Nagpal,
2. Aparna Nagpal D/o Sh. Ashok Nagpal,

Both R/o H.No.1211, Second Floor, Sector – 18C, Chandigarh.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	7 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	04.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Bajinder Singh Pehal S/o Late Sh. Satpal Singh Pehal, GPA Holder of Balvinder Singh Pehal S/o Satpal Singh Pehal R/o House No.129, Sector-6, U/E, Karnal (Haryana).

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

 

 

SITE ADDRESS:

 

   The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

               SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

       

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

             By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid 23 consumer complaints bearing Nos.824, 819, 820, 825, 828, 829, 874, 875, 877, 901, 911, 912, 913, 914, 920, 922, 923, 939, 943, 954, 955 & 973 all of 2016 and 7 of 2017.

2.           After hearing arguments on 06.03.2017, we were of the opinion that the facts and issues in law, involved in the above bunch of complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the aforesaid 23 complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

3.          During arguments, Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, under her signatures, placed on record, a chart showing in each case detail of property purchased, its price, date of agreement, total price and amount received and further whether possession offered etc. which was taken on record. It was also agreed by the Counsel that the facts given in the chart were correct, as per their record.

4.          Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.824 of 2016, titled as ‘Mrs. Kamal Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited & Anr.’.

5.          In brief, the facts are that one Mr. R.K. Monga and Mr. Dharam Pal Garg jointly booked a flat in the project of the Opposite Parties, namely, ‘DLF Valley’ on 23.09.2010 by paying an amount of 4 Lacs vide receipt No.RVL/CRB/00235/910. The Opposite Parties entered into an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement on 10.02.2012 whereby independent floor No.DVF-D7/2 (First Floor) with a parking was allotted to the aforesaid persons. The unit, in question, was transferred in the name of the complainant vide letter dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.52,48,999.81 for the saleable area of 1450 Sq. Feet. It was stated that complainant had paid Rs.49,10,725/- to the Opposite Parties against the said unit.

6.          As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. Further as per Clause 15, if any delay happened beyond 24 months, then the Opposite Parties were to pay compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month of the saleable area for such delay. Despite the commitments made in the Agreement, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver physical possession of the unit within the stipulated period. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have not received any completion certificate from Haryana Country Town Planning Department till date or a calculation certificate from the Govt. Architect, which is in clear violation of Rule 16 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976. It was further stated that the other amenities/facilities as promised were not even ready for possession and the Opposite Parties were not in a position to give possession of the unit, in question as much work was still to be done. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have not provided a community hall, covered stilt parking, yoga centre, proper swimming pool, library, card/carrom room, pool/billiards room, and club house and modern facilities and several other facilities. It was further stated that the construction quality is very poor and most of the promised services/amenities/facilities are lacking.

7.          Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to hand over the physical and legal possession of unit, in question, with all promised facilities, complete in all respects after obtaining Completion Certificate; pay delayed charges/ compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area alongwith 24% interest from 10.02.2012 on such amount; award compensation of Rs.10 Lacs on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment emotional disturbance caused to the complainant and delay in handing over of possession, Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses; and grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8.          The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement stated that the complainant is a subsequent purchaser and had purchased the said floor on 11.09.2014 from the original allottees, which was allotted to them on 05.10.2010. It was admitted that Buyer’s Agreement was executed with the original allottees on 10.02.2012. It was further stated that the instant complaint has been filed in total disregard to the terms of Floor Buyer’s Agreement. It was further stated that occupation certificate of the unit was received on 09.09.2016 and offer of possession was sent on 15.11.2016 to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant is backing out from the executed contract. It was further stated that the complainant had full knowledge about the executed terms of Agreement dated 10.02.2012. It was further stated that the complainant prayed for unfounded demands, which were not as per executed terms of the Agreement and, thus, the Opposite Parties pray to allow 31% cost escalation of the construction as well 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free as the complainant shall get the possession of the floor on the same price as committed by the Opposite Parties at the time of allotment of the floor on 05.10.2010. It was further stated that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction, ordered by the High Court and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party litigation involving acquisition proceedings of land of litigants therein, in the years 2010 and 2012.

9.          The Opposite Parties have further stated that SLP No.21786-88/2010 was filed, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court stayed the construction activities at the project vide order dated 19.04.2012, which was vacated on 12.12.2012 only. It was further stated that after vacation of stay, the construction work again resumed and, therefore, delay in handing over possession was due to force majeure conditions. As regards present status of the project, it was stated that occupation certificate(s) of 1669 units had already been received. It was further stated that occupancy certificate of the floor, in dispute, already received on 09.09.2016 and offer of possession letter dated 15.11.2016 already sent to the complainant. It was also stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and housekeeping and maintenance services were being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle. Further, under the caption “FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT”, it was stated that as per Schedule of Payment (SOP), the price of the property was Rs.57,45,080.22 plus service tax for 1450 Sq. ft. It was further stated that after occupancy certificate due to increase in area, the total price of the property was Rs.67,32,172.07 plus service tax for an area of 1575 sq. ft. It was stated that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.55,03,725/- and there is an outstanding amount of Rs.4,84,124.79 towards DLI for a delay of 2348 days.

10.        In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement; that the complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission; that this Commission cannot adjudicate upon the matter where the prima facie prayers are for modification of clauses of the Agreement and that the complainant is not a consumer as the floor, in question, was purchased by her for investment purposes and earning profits. Another objection raised in the written statement is that as per Clause 55 in the Agreement, all disputes arising out of the Agreement are to be settled amicably, failing which, they shall be referred to the Arbitration and only the courts at Panchkula and Hon’ble Punjab and Harana High Court have jurisdiction. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties could not be made liable for delay caused due to force majeure conditions, which was on account of stay by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012 and delay in grant of approvals in layout plans and service plans. In Sub Para (g) of Para 10 in the preliminary objections, it was further stated that approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans sought on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively.  

11.        The Opposite Parties also moved miscellaneous applications under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the following consumer complaints, for referring the matter to the sole arbitration:-

 

Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Miscellaneous Application No.
	819/2016	112/2017
	820/2016	113/2017
	828/2016	229/2017
	829/2016	230/2017
	874/2016	232/2017
	875/2016	233/2017
	877/2016	235/2017
	901/2016	236/2017
	912/2016	114/2017
	913/2016	208/2017
	914/2016	209/2017
	920/2016	115/2017
	922/2016	116/2017
	923/2016	210/2017
	939/2016	144/2017
	943/2016	146/2017
	954/2016	145/2017
	955/2016	143/2017
	973/2016	211/2017
	7/2017	201/2017

 

 

The aforesaid applications were disposed of by this Commission by holding that the applicability of the arbitration process would be seen at the time of final arguments in the main case.  

12.        On merits, it was stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Floor Buyer’s Agreement, the Agreement was executed only when 25% of the price was paid by the allottee. Accordingly, the Agreement was executed on 10.02.2012 and property was transferred in the name of the complainant on 11.09.2014. It was admitted that the office of the Opposite Parties is situated at Chandigarh and the Agreement was also executed at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant purchased the unit, in question from the original allottees in the year 2014 by factually verifying everything. It was admitted that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, possession of the allotted unit, was to be handed over to the complainant within 24 months from the signing of the Agreement subject to force majeure conditions or due to reasons beyond the control of Opposite Parties as mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Agreement. It was further stated that delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was delayed on account of force majeure conditions. It was further reiterated that after receiving occupancy certificate for the floor, in question, on 09.09.2016, offer of possession letter dated 15.11.2016 was sent to the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

13.        The complainant, in support of her case, submitted her affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

14.        The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar, their Authorized Signatory, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

15.        We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

16.        It is evident that one Mr. R. K. Monga and Mr. Dharam Pal Garg, were allotted Independent Floor No.DVF-D7/2-FF in DLF Valley, Panchkula by the Opposite Parties vide allotment letter dated 05.10.2010 and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed at Chandigarh on 10.02.2012 (Annexure C-5). The said unit was then purchased by the complainant from the original allottees, which was transferred in her name vide letter dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure C-2). The total price of the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.52,48,999.81, besides other charges, securities, deposits and taxes etc. as specified in the Application/Agreement. The complainant, in all, paid a sum of Rs.56,07,557/- as admitted in the Chart showing details of the property, in question, placed on record, under the signatures of the Counsel for the Opposite Party(ies), at the time of arguments on 06.03.2017. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. It may be stated here that the Opposite Parties, in similar cases relating to this project, had given an exit option to the complainant(s) in June 2013, in view of stay by Hon’ble Supreme Court, to seek refund alongwith 9% interest or to continue with the allotment by agreeing to extend one year period for delivery of possession. However, in the instant case, no such document has been placed on record to show that any such offer was ever given to the original allottees in the year 2013. The unit, in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 12.09.2014, when 2 years period had already expired. The possession of the unit, in question, has been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant on 15.11.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure R-1 colly) just three days before filing of the instant complaint filed on 18.11.2016. Admittedly, as against the demand raised vide offer of possession letter dated 15.11.2016, to the tune of Rs.6,01,927.66 i.e. (Rs.5,19,161.66 + Rs.82,766.00), the complainant has not paid any amount to the Opposite Parties.

17.        The Opposite Parties, in preliminary submissions, have prayed to allow them 31% cost escalation of construction as well as 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. There is a clear and specific stipulation in Clause 1.2 of the Agreement that price of the unit is escalation free. The Opposite Parties failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period and extended          one year period. The Opposite Parties are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and        their prayer for allowing them escalation cost amounts           to seeking amendment of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The plea, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

18.        Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, in the instant case, was executed between the parties on 10.02.2012 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), the averment of the Opposite Parties in Para 10(b) of preliminary objections that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained them from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010, is not relevant. The stay by Hon’ble High Court was from 6.4.2010 till 23.7.2010 (Annexures R-5 & R-6).

19.        As regards allegation of complainant regarding non-completion of certain basic amenities and facilities, the Opposite Parties have stated that all the promised facilities shall be provided. In regard to allegation of poor quality of construction, the Opposite Parties have stated that the construction is of high quality. It may be stated here that the complainant has not adduced report of any Engineer/Architect in support of the allegation. These points were, however, not pressed during arguments.

20.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. This question has already been elaborately dealt with by this Commission in case titled ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126. Paras 25 to 35 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“25.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of  1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

26.        To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of  Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

27.                It is also desirable to reproduce unamended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, which reads thus:- 

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an  arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”

28.      Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.

29.       In the year 2015, many amendments were effected in the provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act, reads as under:-

 “8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.”

30.     Now it is to be seen, whether, after amendment in Section 8 of the principal Act, any additional right has accrued to the service provider(s), to say that on account of existence of arbitration agreement, for settling the disputes through an Arbitrator, the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, and also of the National Commission, in large number of judgments, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides additional remedy, notwithstanding any other remedy available to a consumer. The said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act/Law.

31.        Now, we will have to see what difference has been made by the amendment, in the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act. After amendment, it reads that a Judicial Authority is supposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other Court, unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. The legislation was alive to the ratio of the judgments, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. Vide those judgments, it is specifically mandated that under Section 3 of 1986 Act, an additional remedy is available to the consumer(s), which is not in derogation to any other Act. As and when any argument was raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Commission in the judgments, referred to above, have made it very clear that in the face of Section 8 of 1996 Act and existence of arbitration agreement, it is still opened to the Consumer Foras to entertain the consumer complaints. None of the judgments ever conferred any jurisdiction upon the Consumer Foras to entertain such like complaints. Only the legal issues, as existed in the Statute Book, were explained vide different judgments. If we look into amended provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act, it explains  that judicial Authority needs to refer dispute, in which arbitration agreement exist to settle the disputes notwithstanding any judgment/decree or order of any Court. That may be true where in a case,  some order has been passed by any Court, making arbitration Agreement non-applicable to a dispute/parties. However, in the present case, the above said argument is not available. The jurisdiction of Consumer Foras to entertain consumer complaints, in the face of arbitration clause in the Agreement, is in-built in 1986 Act. It was not given to these Foras, by any judgment ever. The provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act interpreted vide judgments vis a vis Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act, were known to the legislature, when the amended Act 2015 was passed. If there was any intention on the part of the legislature, then it would have been very conveniently provided that notwithstanding any remedy available in 1986 Act, it would be binding upon the judicial Authority to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, in case of existence of arbitration agreement, however, it was not so said.

32.        We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/traders. As in the present case, the complainant has spent his life savings to get a unit, for his residential purpose. His hopes were shattered. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- (in the present case Rs.4000/-). As per the mandate of 1986 Act,  a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party. In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act),  the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of Arbitrator’s fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act.

33.        The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. As stated above, in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire  life earnings to purchase the plot, in the said project, launched by the opposite party. However, his hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of the sale consideration, he failed to get possession of the  plot, in question, in a developed project. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

34.        Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in  Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha  (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

35.     In  view of the above, the plea taken by the opposite party, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected.”

             In view of the above, the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

21.        No doubt, in the written version, an objection was also taken by the Opposite Parties, that as per Clause 55 of the Agreement, the parties unequivocally agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of all other courts except the Courts at Panchkula and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and since part of cause of action arose at Panchkula, project being situated in Panchkula District, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In the instant case, Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-5) was executed at Chandigarh. Further receipts (Annexure C-4) and possession letter dated 15.11.2016 were issued from Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties. Since as per these documents, part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.

22.        In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to her, to file the complaint. The submission of Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

23.        The next objection raised by Counsel for Opposite Parties was that the complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/ rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the complainant was virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the present complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the flat, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of Opposite Parties, they were to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of twenty four months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines ‘service’ as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

 

 

24.        From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has the remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by her, as she falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as stated above. In the instant case, the complainant is seeking relief on account of violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement by the Opposite Parties and their deficiency in rendering service. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainant is trying to rewrite/modify the terms of the Agreement. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

25.        To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that since the complainant had purchased the flat, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, she would not fall within the definition of ‘consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs.  Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

“In the case of the purchase of the house which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. First Appeal No.1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

26.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there is delay in offering/delivering possession of the flat, in question. Clauses 11(a) & 11(b) of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.02.2012 [Annexure C-5) read thus:-

“11(a) Schedule for possession of the said Independent Floor:-

 

The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the said Independent  Floor  within  a period of twenty four (24) months from the date of execution of the Agreement unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force majeure conditions and due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of Allottee to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

11(b) Delay due to reasons beyond the control of the company:-

If the possession of the Said Independent Floor is delayed due to Force Majeure conditions, then the company shall be entitled to extension of time for delivery of possession of the said Independent Floor. The company during the continuance of the Force Majeure reserves the right to alter or vary the terms and conditions of the agreement or if the circumstances so warrant, the company may also suspend the development for such period as is considered expedient and the allottee shall have no right to raise any claim compensation of any nature whatsoever for or with regard to such suspension.”

As stated above, according to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). In the event of failure to deliver possession, as per Clause 15 of the Agreement, the complainant was entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also admitted that above fact of granting stay resulted into  delay in construction at the site.

27.        Though in similar cases of this project, the Opposite Parties have been taking benefit of one year on account of stay by Hon’ble Apex court from April 2012 to December 2012 but in the instant case, no exit option is available on record. The Opposite Parties have specifically pleaded that there was stay by the Hon’ble Apex court, which in turn delayed the project. In view of this, the two years period stipulated in the Agreement and one year extended period on account of stay by the Hon’ble Apex Court, expired in February 2015 i.e. on 09.02.2015. No justification whatsoever for delay in offering possession beyond 09.02.2015 has been explained by the Opposite Parties. As admitted by the Counsel for the opposite parties, at the time of arguments, the complainant has made payments in the sum of Rs.56,07,557/-. As stated in the written statement, permission for occupation of the unit, in question, was received on 09.09.2016 (Annexure R-1). By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within  maximum period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and within further extended period of 12 months i.e. latest by 09.02.2015, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The argument of the Opposite Parties that delay in handing over possession of independent floor was attributable due to delay in receiving statutory approvals from the competent authorities, the same being absolutely beyond its control, is not tenable.  The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 10.02.2012 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Parties ought to have obtained all the approvals. If permissions/approvals for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, approvals for which were also received in due course of time, the initial time taken (more than a year) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of around 2 years 9 months beyond initial stipulated period of two years and 1 Year 9 months from one year extended period in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainant. Delay in offering possession to the complainant is an act of clear deficiency of the Opposite Parties.

28.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period of 24 months and extended period of 12 months on account of force majeure conditions. As stated above, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties did not deliver possession within 24 months as stipulated in Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and thereafter within extended period of 12 months, from execution of the Agreement on 10.02.2012 i.e. by 09.02.2015. There is, thus, delay of around 1 Year 9 Months years, even beyond the extended period. Possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties on 15.11.2016. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Shri Suman Nandi & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr., Complaint No.277 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2015, held in Para 16 as under:-

“16.       On perusal of the Buyer’s Agreement and the affidavits filed by the parties it is clear that the complainants had booked the subject apartments on the expressed promise extended by the opposite parties that subject to Force Majeure, the opposite parties would deliver the possession of the apartments complete in all respect within 30-36 months, as the case may be, of the execution of the Buyers Agreement and being influenced by the said promise the complainants entered into the contract. No doubt in the Buyer’s Agreement some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind for which clause 4.a. for compensating the complainants for delay was incorporated but it does not mean that the intention was that even in the event of inordinate delay in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainants would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view clause 4.a. was meant for computing compensation in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession.   If the argument of the opposite party is to be accepted, it would lead to absurd situation and would give an unfair advantage to the unscrupulous builder who might utilize the consideration amount meant to finance the project by the buyer for his other business venture at nominal interest of 2-3 per cent as against much higher bank lending rates.  This could never be the intention of legislation that if such a proposition is accepted, it would result in defeating the object of Consumer Protection Act.”

 

The National Commission granted 12% interest as compensation from the date of default in delivery of possession.

29.        Recently in Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order read thus:-

“8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated  in  the  Buyers  Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1)         xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.

(3)   No separate compensation would be payable to the complainants either towards the rent if any paid by them or for the mental agony and harassment which they have suffered on account of the failure of the opposite party to perform its contractual obligation.”

30.        No doubt, in the Buyer’s Agreement, some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating the complainants for delay, but it does not mean that the intention was that even in the event of inordinate delay, in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainant would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month, which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view, Clauses 11(a) and 15 were meant for computing compensation, in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession.  

31.        Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, and position stated above, grant of compensation in the form of simple interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, would meet the ends of justice. The possession having been offered on 15.11.2016, the complainant shall be entitled to compensation up-to plus 2 months from 15.11.2016 i.e. up-to 14.01.2017 (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period). The complainant is, thus, held entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% on the deposited amount for the delay period as above. Further, if after making payment/completion of documents, possession is not offered by the Opposite Parties, for delay beyond 30 days, complainant shall be further entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% on the deposited amount.

32.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to her, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to her, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date in the Agreement or latest by 09.02.2015 i.e. within the extended period. Admittedly, the possession of unit, in question, has been offered to the complainant on 15.11.2016. The compensation in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs + Rs.5 Lacs = Rs.10 Lacs, claimed by the complainant is on the higher side. The complainant has been adequately compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainant shall also get the benefit of escalation in price of the unit. There has been DLI in the sum of Rs.4,84,124.79 against the complainant. Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit. Therefore, in this complaint, the complainant is not entitled to same amount of compensation as we have been earlier granting. Grant of compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in this case would serve the ends of justice. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

33.        Similarly, in following 8 complaints, particulars of which are indicated in Table-I below, the possession of the unit(s) was offered by the Opposite Parties on the dates indicated against the respective complaints:-

TABLE – I

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period	Date on which possession offered.	Compensation, if any, credited. (Rs.)	DLI if any (Rs.)
1.	825/2016	31.12.2010	30.12.2013	10.10.2016	-	-
2.	875/2016	01.12.2010	30.11.2013	26.10.2016	-	66,349.51
3.	877/2016	19.11.2010	18.11.2013	15.11.2016	8,89,419.00	-
4.	911/2016	09.12.2010	08.12.2013	26.10.2016	-	1,10,650.00
5.	920/2016	20.01.2011	19.01.2014	10.10.2016	-	1,92,340.60
6.	939/2016	17.11.2010	16.11.2013	29.10.2016	-	-
7.	943/2016	04.02.2011	03.02.2014	15.11.2016	-	-
8.	7/2017	09.02.2011	08.02.2014	15.11.2016	-	65,584.23

 

 

34.        Therefore, in all aforesaid complaints, the complainants are entitled to compensation by way of grant of 12% interest, for the delayed period, up-to the date of offer of possession plus 2 months (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period), as under:-

 

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of offer of possession	Date up-to which entitled to compensation
1.	825/2016	10.10.2016	09.12.2016
2.	875/2016	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
3.	877/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
4.	911/2016	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
5.	920/2016	10.10.2016	09.12.2016
6.	939/2016	29.10.2016	28.12.2016
7.	943/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
8.	7/2017	15.11.2016	14.01.2017

 

             If after deposit of amount minus contingent deposit of vat, possession is not delivered, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainants shall be further entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount.

35.        However, in consumer complaint bearing No.911 of 2016, in terms of this Commission order dated 16.12.2016, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11,33,720/- with the Opposite Parties on 03.01.2017, (as is apparent from order dated 31.01.2017), except contingent deposit of vat. It was also stated by Counsel for complainants in Complaint Case No.943 of 2016 that payment stood deposited on 26.12.2016 but possession has still not been handed over. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties conceded that possession in these cases has still not been delivered to the complainant(s).

36.        However, in the remaining consumer complaints bearing Nos.825, 875, 877, 920 and 939 all of 2016 and 7 of 2017, the complainants did not deposit any amount towards demand raised vide offer of possession letters and possession of the units have still not been delivered.

37.        As per offer of possession letters placed, on record, six months’ time was given to the complainant(s) to complete the formalities and make the payment.

38.        Ms. Ekta Jhanji and Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on instructions, stated that in case, any allottee is eager to get possession, he/she will complete formalities and deposit the amount before the period of six months and as and when amount is deposited and necessary documents are submitted, within 3 weeks thereafter, possession will be handed over, to the complainant(s). It was further stated that contingent Vat deposit will not be insisted upon at this stage, subject to furnishing of an affidavit by the allottee(s) to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. In cases relating to this project, earlier the Opposite Parties, at the time of offering possession, were also raising demand   on   account   of  stamp  duty  and  registration charges but now while offering possession, no demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges has been raised.

39.        In consumer complaints bearing Nos.875, 877 and 920 all of 2016, the Counsel for the complainants argued that there was delay of 8-10 months in execution of the agreement after date of allotment, which was an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore, the complainants are also entitled to compensation from the date of allotment till the agreement was executed. It may be stated here that the Opposite Parties, in cases pertaining to this project, as also in the instant case, have been pleading that there being stay by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court during the year 2010, it acted as a force majeure and delayed the project. Since the Agreements in these cases were executed in November/December 2010 and January 2011, when there was no stay, they (Opposite Parties) are not entitled to any benefit. In the face of arguments of the Counsel for the complainants, such stay by the Hon’ble High Court shall act as force majeure condition. It may also be stated here that it is not immediately after booking of the unit that Buyer’s Agreement is executed and the process, in all fairness, is likely to take 3-4 months. There was stay by Hon’ble High Court for about four months from April to July 2010. There being no significant delay, the complainants are not entitled to any compensation for delay in execution of Agreement.

40.        Further, in some of the aforesaid complaints, it was the case of the complainants that they (complainants) have also been burdened with the increased/excess service tax that was charged/levied after the date by when possession of the independent floor was to be accomplished as per the Agreement. In this regard, it may be stated here that the complainants have not given any details of such increase in service tax. Further, delay of one year was on account of stay by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the complainants consented and opted to continue with the project, which meant that they accepted liability for increase in service tax during the extended period. The financial implication for the alleged increase is not likely to be significant. In any case, the complainants have been adequately compensated by granting 12% interest on the deposited amount for delay in delivering possession.

41.        In six consumer complaints bearing Nos.828, 829, 901, 913, 914 and 923 all of 2016, particulars of which are given in Table-II hereunder, in terms of orders passed by this Commission, possession of the units, in question, stands delivered to the complainants on the dates indicated against each, after deposit of the amount towards demands raised vide offer of possession letters, minus the demand qua component of contingent deposit of vat. This was admitted by the Counsel for the parties during arguments.

 

 TABLE – II

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period	Date on which possession offered.	Date on which possession taken	Compensation, if any, credited. (Rs.)	DLI if any (Rs.)
1.	828/2016	28.02.2011	27.02.2014	26.10.2016	15.12.2016	-	1,23,697.00
2.	829/2016	29.03.2011	28.03.2014	05.10.2016	16.01.2017	-	-
3.	901/2016	01.02.2011	31.01.2014	05.10.2016	24.02.2017	-	-
4.	913/2016	14.12.2010	13.12.2013	29.10.2016	12.02.2017	-	-
5.	914/2016	09.06.2011	08.06.2014	15.10.2016	04.02.2017	4,55,734.00	-
6.	923/2016	07.02.2011	06.02.2014	26.10.2016	7.01.2017	-	-

 

42.        The complainants are entitled to compensation @12% p.a. interest for the delay period, after 2 years plus 1 year extended period, up-to + 2 months from the date of offer of possession or up-to date when possession was actually delivered whichever is earlier.

43.        The complainants in the complaints indicated in Tables I & II above, are also entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in rendering service.

44.        In Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.825, 829, 877, 901, 913, 914, 923, 939 and 943 all of 2016, the complainants are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.

45.        However, in Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.828, 875, 911 & 920 all of 2016 and 7 of 2017, , there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.1,23,697/-, Rs.66,349.51, Rs.1,10,650/-, Rs.1,92,340.60 and Rs.65,584.23 respectively against the complainants. Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit(s). Therefore, in these complaints, the complainants are not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in each of these cases would serve the ends of justice.

46.        In five Consumer Complaints, details whereof are given hereunder in Table-III possession of the unit(s), in question, has not been offered to the complainant(s) by the Opposite Parties:-

TABLE – III

1	2	3	4	5
Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after one year extended period	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate.
1.	874/2016	03.01.2011	02.01.2014	-
2.	922/2016	18.07.2011	17.07.2014	24.10.2016
3.	954/2016	01.12.2010	30.11.2013	12.01.2017
4.	955/2016	01.06.2011	31.05.2014	12.01.2017
5.	973/2016	05.05.2011	04.05.2014	-

 

47.        As stated above, possession of the units, in question, have not been offered by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, in view of observations made in the preceding paras, the complainants, in these cases, are entitled to possession of the units, in question, complete in all respects on payment of amounts due. The complainants are held entitled to 12% p.a. interest on the deposited amounts for the delayed period beyond three years i.e. from 03.01.2014, 18.07.2014, 01.12.2013, 01.06.2014 and 05.05.2014 respectively till possession is handed over. The period up-to which compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. shall be payable will be calculated in the manner indicated in Para 31 above.

48.        In consumer complaints bearing Nos.874, 954, 955 and 973 all of 2016, the complainants are also held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.

49.        Since, in CC/922/2016, there is DLI in the sum of Rs.90,624/- on account of delay in payment of installments, the complainants are not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

50.          In three consumer complaints bearing Nos.819, 820 & 912 all of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table-IV below, the complainants have sought refund of the deposited amounts:-

TABLE – IV

 

Sr. No.	Description/Details	Complaint Case No.
		819/2016	820/2016	912/2016
1.	Amount deposited. (Rs.)	Rs.69,53,893.51	Rs.34,72,132.56	Rs.42,84,947.00
2.	Date of Agreement.	13.01.2012	07.01.2011	03.11.2011
3.	Due date for offering possession.	12.01.2015	06.01.2014	02.11.2014
4.	Whether possession offered	Not offered till date	On 29.10.2016	On 26.10.2016
5.	Delay in offer of possession	2 Years 2 Months	2 Years 10 Months	2 Years
6.	Whether first allottee	Yes	yes	Yes
7.	DLI	Rs.24,942.00	Rs.4,272.00	Rs.2,22,561.12-

 

 

51.        In the Chart submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, during arguments, receipt of the amount(s) as shown against the Column ‘Amount deposited (Rs.)’ at Sr. No.1 in the table, has been admitted.

52.        As is evident from record of the above complaints, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreements were executed on 13.01.2012, 07.01.2011 and 03.11.2011 respectively. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Company was to endeavor to complete construction of the independent floors within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the agreement unless there was delay or failure due to reasons mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of the allottee to pay in time the total price and other charges, taxes and cesses, deposits, securities etc. and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Clause 12 of the Agreement stipulated that company upon obtaining certificate of occupation and use from the Governmental Authority, shall offer in writing, possession of the independent floor to the allottee in terms of the Agreement to be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of such notice and the Company shall give possession provided the allottee is not in default of any terms and conditions of the Agreement and has complied with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as may be prescribed by the Company in this regard. In these cases, 24 months period plus the extended period of 12 months from the date of execution of the agreements expired on 12.01.2015, 06.01.2014 and 02.11.2014 respectively. There has been inordinate delay in offering possession. No reason or circumstances, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties for such delay beyond initial period of two years and one year extended period, have been explained. There is, thus, inordinate delay in offering possession of the allotted unit. This Commission in the case of Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, in the light of law settled by Hon’ble National Commission in such cases, held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited with the Opposite Party. Relevant Paras of the aforesaid judgment read thus:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the  complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the  complainants to accept the same. It was so held by the National Commission in Emaar MGF   Land   Limited   and   another   Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). Recently also, under similar circumstances, in the case of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the  complainant was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. It is therefore held that the  complainants could not be held guilty, of filing the present complaint, seeking refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest and compensation, as possession of the unit was not offered to them by the stipulated date.

It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. Recently in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015 decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder while holding as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainant that considering the default on the part of the opposite party in performing its contractual obligation, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and, therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him alongwith reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

Therefore, the complainants, in complaint cases bearing Nos.819 of 2016 and 820 of 2016, are held entitled to refund of the amount alongwith interest @15% per annum from the dates of respective deposits.

             As regards complaint case bearing No.912 of 2016, the complainant is a second allottee, in whose name, the unit, in question, was transferred on 09.01.2013. Therefore, in the light of ratio of judgment in case titled ‘Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors.’, Complaint Case No.147 of 2016 decided by this Commission on 22.08.2016, on the amounts paid by the previous allottee to the Opposite Parties, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @15% per annum from the date when the payment of the said amount was made by the complainant to the original allottee/date of endorsement and for the remaining amount paid by him (complainant) to the Opposite Parties, the complainant shall be entitled to refund alongwith the same rate of interest i.e. 15% per annum from the respective dates of deposits.

53.        As regards compensation for mental agony, harassment etc., in consumer complaints bearing Nos.819 & 820 both of 2016, the complainants, are held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively.

54.        Since, in consumer complaint No.912 of 2016, there is DLI in the sum of Rs.2,22,561.12 on account of delay in payment of installments, the complainant is     not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

55.        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, in all the cases.

56.        For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.824, 819, 820, 825, 828, 829, 874, 875, 877, 901, 911, 912, 913, 914, 920, 922, 923, 939, 943, 954, 955 & 973 all of 2016 and 7 of 2017 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

 

824, 825, 875, 877, 911, 920, 939 & 943 all of 2016 and 7 of 2017

 

             In these nine cases, the Opposite Parties have offered possession in October 2016 and November 2016, asking the complainants to deposit the amount(s) within six   months. As already discussed in Para 38 above, in case, any allottee is eager to get possession, he/she will complete formalities and deposit the amount before the period of six months, and pay the amount towards demand raised, except the demands towards, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges and Stamp duty, if any, and as and when, amount is deposited and necessary documents are submitted, possession will be handed over to complainant(s), by the Opposite Parties within 3 weeks.

             The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date  balance payment is made/documents are completed  by the complainant(s).
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), with effect from 10.02.2015, 31.12.2013, 01.12.2013, 19.11.2013, 09.12.2013, 20.01.2014, 17.11.2013, 04.02.2014 & 09.02.2014 respectively up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 14.01.2017, 09.12.2016, 25.12.2016, 14.01.2017, 25.12.2016, 09.12.2016, 28.12.2016, 14.01.2017 & 14.01.2017 respectively, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.              In case, the Opposite Parties fail to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment by the complainants, for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.       [In CC/877/2016, compensation in the sum of Rs.8,89,419/-, on account of delay in possession has been credited in Final Statement of Account. The same shall be deducted from the compensation amount by way of interest @12% for delay period]
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case i.e. [In CC Nos.825, 877, 939 & 943 all of 2016], and Rs.1,25,000/-, in each case i.e. [In CC Nos.875, 911 & 920 all of 2016 & 7 of 2017] and Rs.1,00,000/- in CC No.824 of 2016, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, in each case, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

 

 

 

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

828, 829, 901, 913, 914 & 923 all of 2016.

 

             In these cases, possession of the units, in question, stands handed over to the complainants on 15.12.2016, 16.01.2017, 24.02.2017, 12.02.2017, 04.02.2017 and 07.01.2017 respectively.

             The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	Execute and get registered the sale deed(s) in respect of the unit(s), in question, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(ii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), with effect from 28.02.2014, 29.03.2014, 01.02.2014, 14.12.2013, 09.06.2014 & 07.02.2014 till 15.12.2016, 04.12.2016, 04.12.2016, 28.12.2016, 14.12.2016 & 25.12.2016   respectively, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.       [In CC/914/2016, compensation in the sum of Rs.4,55,734/-, on account of delay in possession has been credited in Final Statement of Account. The same shall be deducted from the compensation amount by way of interest @12% for delay period]
(iii)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case i.e. [In CC Nos.829, 901, 913, 914 & 923 all of 2016] and Rs.1,25,000/- [In CC No.828 of 2016] on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/-, as litigation costs, to the complainants, in each case, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

 

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

874, 922, 954, 955 and 973 all of 2016

 

             In these cases, the possession has not been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainants.

             The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within three months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amounts, by the complainant(s), due against them.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amounts, to the complainant(s), with effect from 03.01.2014, 18.07.2014, 01.12.2013, 01.06.2014 & 05.05.2014 till 30.04.2017, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts,      to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.05.2017, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case i.e. [In CC Nos.874, 954, 955 & 973 all of 2016] and Rs.1,25,000/- [In CC No.922 of 2016] on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/-, as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), in each case, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

            In all these complaints, as agreed between the parties, the Advocate Charges shall not be charged by the Opposite Parties. The actual expenditure for registration of Sale Deed(s) besides Stamp duty and Registration charges, shall, however, be borne by the complainant(s).

             As agreed, the amount of contingent Vat deposit will not be insisted upon at this stage, subject to furnishing an affidavit by the allottee to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. The amount of contingent vat, shall be payable by the complainant(s) as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government. The complainant(s) shall deposit contingent vat within three weeks from the date the same is paid by Opposite Parties to the Government and the complainant(s) are informed of this fact. Delay beyond three weeks from the receipt of notice shall attract simple interest @12% per annum.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

819, 820 and 912 all of 2016.

 

             The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

1.   To refund the amount of Rs.69,53,893.51 (in CC/819/2016) & Rs.34,72,132.56 (in CC/820/2016) alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the complainant(s), from the respective dates of deposits and Rs.42,84,947.00 (in CC/912/2016) alongwith same rate of interest i.e. 15% per annum i.e. on the amount paid by the original allottee to the Opposite Parties, interest will be payable from the date when the payment of the said amount was made by the complainant to the original allottee/date of endorsement whereas on the remaining amount paid by the complainant to the Opposite Parties, interest will be payable from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest @18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of default till actual payment;

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in CC Nos.819 of 2016; Rs.1,50,000/- in CC No.820 of 2016 and Rs.1,25,000/- in CC No.912 of 2016, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment & deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, in each case, to the complainant(s), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

57.       However, it is made clear that in case, the complainants have availed loan facility from any financial institution(s), such an institution shall have the first charge on the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due against the complainants.

58.       Complaint No.820 of 2016 stands dismissed against Opposite Party No.3 being performa party.

59.        Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.819, 820, 825, 828, 829, 874, 875, 877, 901, 911, 912, 913, 914, 920, 922, 923, 939, 943, 954, 955 & 973 all of 2016 and 7 of 2017.

60.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

61.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

23.03.2017

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Ad