DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited V/S Omvir Singh - Consumer Court Case

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/714/2017

Omvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narender Yadav & Vineet Yadav, Adv.

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	714 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	29.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2018

Omvir Singh S/o Sh. Ram Sharan,
Sangita Sirohi W/o Sh. Omvir Singh,

Both H.No.304, Golden Tower, Luxmi Vihar, Shashtri Nagar, Meerut.

…….Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192,
Sector 8-C Chandigarh U.T. Pin-160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Registered Office Address:

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Registered 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.

Ananta Raghuvanshi, Executive Director, Sales and Marketing, DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	715 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	29.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2018

Madhusudan Kumra S/o Sh. Mool Chand Kumra,
Sangeeta Kumra W/o Sh. Madhusudan Kumra,

Both R/o B-XX-2951, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana.

…….Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192,
Sector 8-C Chandigarh U.T. Pin-160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Registered Office Address:

Ananta Raghuvanshi, Executive Director, Sales and Marketing, DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	716 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	29.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2018

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Bhajwana Ram R/o 10 Bourne Street, Wentworthville – 2145, NSW, Australia.

…….Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192,
Sector 8-C Chandigarh U.T. Pin-160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Registered Office Address:

Ananta Raghuvanshi, Executive Director, Sales and Marketing, DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	717 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	29.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2018

Dr. Sanjeev Mittal S/o Sh. S. R. Mittal,
Dr. Sukanya Mittal W/o Sh. Sanjeev Mittal,

Both R/o Mittal Hospital and Heart Centre, Near New Telephone Exchange, Old Dusshera Ground, Moga, Punjab.

…….Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192,
Sector 8-C Chandigarh U.T. Pin-160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Registered Office Address:

Ananta Raghuvanshi, Executive Director, Sales and Marketing, DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	752 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	24.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2018

Lt. Col. Rajvir Singh S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal,
Kanta Devi W/o Lt. Col. Rajvir Singh,

Both are residents of Floor No.E-7/20-GF, DLF Valley, Panchkula.

…….Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192,
Sector 8-C Chandigarh U.T. Pin-160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., 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.

Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

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 five consumer complaints bearing Nos.714, 715, 716, 717 and 752 all of 2017.

2. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Parties placed on record a detailed chart duly signed, showing in each case detail of the property, date of Agreement, total price, amount received, DLI etc. and further the date when possession was offered etc., which was taken on record.

3. Arguments were heard in common. After hearing arguments on 13.02.2018, we were of the opinion that the facts and issues in law, involved in the above bunch of complaints, by and large, were the same, and therefore, the aforesaid five complaints could be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

4. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.714 of 2017, titled as ‘Omvir Singh & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’

5. In brief, the facts are that the Opposite Parties developed a Residential Group Housing Project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex. On the basis of advertisements, one Sumit Kumar Aggarwal approached the Opposite Parties and booked a flat in DLF Valley Project on 27.03.2010 and paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Opposite Parties entered into an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement (Annexure C-1) on 10.01.2011 whereby independent floor No.D-3/4 FF (First Floor) with parking number P-1F was allotted to him (Sumit Kumar Aggarwal). The complainants entered into an agreement with Sumnit Kumar Aggarwal on 23.02.2012 for the unit, in question and the Opposite Parties transferred the said unit in the name of the complainants, namely, Sh. Omvir Singh and Smt. Sangita Sirohi vide copy of endorsement letter dated 23.02.2012 (Annexure C-2). The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.35,37,099.78 for the saleable area of 1550 Sq. Feet. In Para 7 of the complaint, it was stated that till 24.04.2017, the complainants had paid Rs.44,10,698/- to the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the Opposite Parties received more than Rs.10 Lacs from the complainants after booking before entering into agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties – Builder by using dominant position inserted many illegal clauses in the agreement and on raising objection by the complainants, the Opposite Parties threatened to forfeit their complete amount alongwith booking amount and thus, the complainants had no option but to sign the agreement with many arbitrary clauses.

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. The Opposite Parties also published an advertisement dated 13.01.2014 stating that possession would be delivered in 2014 but nothing was done. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties offered possession of the unit, in question, vide letter dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure C-4) and asked the complainants to deposit the amount of Rs.9,58,049.53 within six months. It was further stated that possession offered is just a paper possession and not legal. It was further stated that the complainants deposited the complete amount by 24.04.2017 as demanded in the possession letter. It was further stated that on personally visiting the unit, the complainants came to know that the above said unit and other amenities/facilities as promised were not even ready for possession and much work was still to be done before giving the possession of the floor. It was further stated that the Opposite parties illegally raised demand of Rs.25,477/- for contingent deposit of Vat @Rs.14.55 per sq. ft. It was further stated that the complainants invested their hard earned money and delay in grant of possession, have caused financial loss and grave mental agony and disturbance to them. It was further stated that the complainants lost interest in the project and vide letter dated 31.8.2017 (Annexure C-5) demanded refund of the amount form the Opposite Parties, if possession is not given but all in vain.

7. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants 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 physical and legal possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects after obtaining all due permissions and certificates including the Completion Certificate inter-alia from the concerned authorities; pay interest calculated @15% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of delay in handing over of the possession till the date, possession is handed over to the complainants; withdraw illegal demand of contingent deposit of Vat to the tune of Rs.25,477/-; award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance caused to the complainant due to the actions/omissions of Opposite Parties; Rs.40,000/- 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 after receipt of occupation certificate on 02.05.2016, offer of possession was sent to the complainants on 05.10.2016. Neither the complainants are taking possession nor paid the due amount as raised in FSA dated 05.10.2016 and as such, the complainants are liable to pay holding charges. The Opposite Parties admitted the factum of the complainants being subsequent purchasers. It was further stated that instant complaint has been filed in total disregard to the terms of Floor Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties. It was further stated that the complainants had full knowledge about the executed terms of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.01.2011. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free as the complainants shall be getting benefits of cost escalation on account of construction material/labour, land holding cost and also of price appreciation of the floor. 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. It was stated that occupation certificate(s) of 1775 units had already been received and offer of possession was sent to 1707 customers. 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.

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 complainants have 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; that the complainants are not consumer as the floor, in question, was purchased by them for investment purposes and earning profits. An objection was also raised that this Commission did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint in as much as the parties agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of all other Courts except the Courts at Panchkula and High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Further, an objection was also raised in the written statement 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. 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 06.04.2010 to 23.07.2010 and 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 12 of the preliminary objections, it was further stated that approvals regarding revision in layout plan and service plans sought on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, were received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively.

11. On merits, it was stated that the price of the property as per SOP is Rs.40,23,439.10 plus service tax for 1550 sq. ft. It was further stated that due to increase in the area, as per Clauses 9 & 10 of the Agreement, the total price of the property was Rs.44,91,691.96 plus service tax for an area of 1751 sq. ft. It was further stated that the complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.44,10,698/- and there is an outstanding amount of Rs.540.95 towards DLI for a delay of 9 days.

12. It was admitted that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, possession of the allotted unit, was to be handed over to the complainants within 24 months from the date of 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 there was stay on construction in furtherance to the direction passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.04.2012 in SLP No.21786-88/2010, which got vacated only on 12.12.2012. It was reiterated that offer of possession letter dated 05.10.2016 was sent to the complainants. It was further stated that demand qua contingent VAT was raised as per Clause 3 of the letter annexed with the final statement of account. 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 complainants, in support of their case, submitted their separate affidavits, 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 vide allotment letter dated 03.04.2010 (at Page 271 of the written statement), one Sumit Kumar Agrawal was allotted Independent Floor No.DVF-D3/4-FF-217 in DLF Valley, Panchkula and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between him and the Opposite Parties on 10.01.2011 (Annexure C-1). The said unit was subsequently purchased by the complainants on 23.02.2012 and confirmation letter regarding transfer of property in their name was also issued on 23.02.2012 (Annexure C-2). The total price of the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.35,37,099.78, besides other charges, securities, deposits and taxes etc. as specified in the Application/Agreement. In all, a sum of Rs.44,10,698/- has actually been paid to the Opposite Parties, as mentioned in the Chart showing details of the property etc., in question, placed on record, under the signatures of the Counsel for the Opposite Party(ies), at the time of arguments on 13.02.2018. 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 allottee in the year 2013. It is, however, on record, that there was stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012 (Annexures R-7 & R-8), which in turn, delayed the completion of the project. The Opposite Parties have claimed that this being a force majeure condition, they are entitled to benefit of delay of one year. The possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainants on 05.10.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure C-4/R-1 colly.) and the instant complaint has been filed on 29.09.2017. During arguments, it was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that another letter dated 25.01.2018 offering possession was sent to the complainants on 25.01.2018.

17. The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, in the instant case, was executed between the parties on 10.01.2011 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), as such, the averment of the Opposite Parties that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained it from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010 (06.04.2010 to 23.07.2010) (Annexure R-5 & R-6), is not relevant.

18. The allegation of the complainants that the Opposite Parties by using their dominant position inserted many illegal clauses in the buyer’s agreement and they were compelled to sign the same as they were threatened that amount paid would be forfeited has been categorically denied by the Opposite Parties. It may be stated here that no evidence in support of the allegation has been brought on record by the complainants. It is a fact duly borne on record that Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the original allottee on 10.01.2011 from whom the complainants purchased the unit in the year 2012 on 23.02.2012. The plea raised is without any basis and the same stands rejected.

19. It may be stated here that in complaint case bearing No.752 of 2017, the complainants, apart from increase in area of the unit, in question, have also challenged the demands raised in the offer of possession letter. The increase in the area is less than 15%, for which, no consent was required. Otherwise also, the issue qua legality of other demands raised, has already been settled by this Commission in Consumer Complaint bearing No.32 of 2017 titled Kavita Devi Vs. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. decided on 17.05.2017 alongwith which, 12 connected complaints were also decided. Except the demand on account of contingent deposit of vat, which could be paid, after payment of the same by the Opposite Parties to the Govt., this Commission held the other demands raised to be legal and valid. The view held in Kavita Devi’s case (supra) qua demands raised holds good in this case also.

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. It may be stated here that this Commission in case titled ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, noted that litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. The complaint in the State Commission can be filed by making payment between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- only. Whereas, as per principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of arbitrator’s fee. As per mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is proposed to be decided within three months from the date of service of the other party. On the other hand, 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 was observed that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, it would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act. Paras 26, 33 and 34 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“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.”

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.”

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.

21. Another objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that as per Clause 55 of the Agreement, the Courts at Panchkula alone and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It was also stated that since the property, in question, is situated in District Panchkula, a part of cause of action arose at Panchkula. It may be stated here that according to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him/her. Clearly, application for allotment of Unit (Annexure R-3) was made by the original allottee at Chandigarh address of the Opposite Party viz. Shop No.101-102, Ist Floor, DLF City Centre Mall, Rajiv Gandhi, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh. Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties on 10.01.2011 at Chandigarh. Since, as per documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 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 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 complainants, 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 complainants 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 them, to file the complaint. The submission of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

23. The next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that the complainants have 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 complainants were 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 complainants 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 the 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”

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 complainants have 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 them, as they fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as stated above. In the instant case, the complainants are seeking relief on account of violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement by the Opposite Party and its deficiency in rendering service. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainants are trying to rewrite/modify the terms of the Agreement. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

24. To defeat claim of the complainants, 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, they 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 complainants are property dealer(s), 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 complainants, 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 complainants, thus, fall 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.

25. 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 10.01.2011 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 complainants were 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.

26. The Opposite Parties have specifically pleaded that there was stay by the Hon’ble Apex Court from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 (Annexures R-7 & R-8), 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 on 09.01.2014. No justification whatsoever for delay in offering possession beyond 09.01.2014 has been explained by the Opposite Parties. 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 10.01.2011 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 two years) 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. Possession of the unit, in question, having been offered vide offer of possession letter dated 05.10.2016, clearly, there is inordinate delay (around 2 years 9 months) in offering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants. Delay in offering possession to the complainants is an act of clear deficiency of the Opposite Parties.

27. It may be stated here that while offering possession vide letter dated 05.10.2016, the Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.10,50,064.53 i.e. (Rs.9,58,049.53 + Rs.92,015.00), which included contingent deposit of Vat of Rs.25,477/-. As stated during arguments, the complainants have deposited the entire amount including contingent deposit of Vat on 06.04.2017 and the requisite documents have also been executed/submitted by the complainants to the Opposite Parties on 06.04.2017 itself. Despite payment of demanded amount and submitting documents, possession of the unit, in question, has not been delivered to them (complainants) till date by the Opposite Parties.

28. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are 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 10.01.2011 i.e. by 09.01.2014. There is, thus, inordinate delay of around 2 years 9 months, even beyond the extended period. As already stated above, possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties on 05.10.2016. Clearly there is delay in offering possession on account of which, the complainants deserve to be compensated. It may be stated here that a two Judges Bench of 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, where there was delay in delivering possession, in Para 16 held 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.

Also 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.

29. 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 complainants 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.

30. 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, the complainants are entitled to grant of compensation in the form of simple interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, beyond two years plus one year extended period i.e. w.e.f. 09.01.2014 up-to + 2 months from the date of offer of possession. The possession having been offered on 05.10.2016, the complainants shall be entitled to compensation up-to plus 2 months from 05.10.2016 i.e. 04.12.2016 (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period). The complainants are, thus, held entitled to compensation by granting interest @12% on the deposited amount for the delay period as above. In the event of failure of the Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days after deposit of due payment and submission of documents by the complainants, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainants shall be further entitled to interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount till possession is delivered.

31. Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, stated that the Opposite Parties are not insisting upon contingent deposit of Vat at this stage, subject to furnishing of an affidavit by the allottee(s) to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. It was further stated that the complainant(s) need not pay Advocate charges. It was stated and agreed by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the stamp duty and registration charges would be payable by the complainant(s) at the time of execution of sale deed. Besides, incidental expenses for execution of sale deed shall also be borne by the complainant(s).

32. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to them, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to them, by the Opposite Parties, by the date promised in the Agreement and within one year extended period. The complainants have been compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period as stated above. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainants shall also get the benefit of escalation in price of the unit. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainants would serve the ends of justice.

33. In the four connected complaints, in complaints bearing Nos.715, 716 and 717 of 2017, the possession of the unit(s), in question, has been offered but the same has been delivered to the complainant(s). In complaint bearing No.752 of 2017, the possession stands delivered. The details of date of agreement, due date for possession, date on which possession offered, whether amount deposited after offer of possession and documents submitted etc., are given in the following table:-

TABLE

	COMPLAINT NO.
Sr. No.		715/2017	716/2017	717/2017	752/2017
1.	Date of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	07.02.2011 (2nd Allottee) 24.04.2012	17.01.2012 (2nd Allottee) 17.05.2013	02.12.2010 (2nd Allottee) 07.03.2013	08.02.2011 (2nd Allottee) 12.07.2013
2.	Amount paid as per Chart (Rs.).	49,96,019.10	70,86,371.85	65,49,077.08	56,17,651.00
3.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period.	06.02.2014	16.01.2015	01.12.2013	07.02.2014
4.	Date on which possession offered.	15.11.2016	31.05.2017	26.10.2016	15.11.2016
5.	Whether amount deposited after offer of possession.	Yes on 22..03.2017	Yes on 28.08.2017	Yes on 31.07.2017	Yes on 30.03.2017
6.	Whether documents submitted after offer of possession.	Yes on 22.03.2017	Pending	Yes on 30.09.2017	Yes
7.	Date on which possession delivered.	-	-	-	19.04.2017
8.	Date of Occupation Certificate.	07.04.2016 (R-1 Colly.)	21.10.2016 (R-1 Colly.)	29.06.2016 (R-1 Colly.)	09.09.2016 (R-2)

34. In aforesaid four complaints, amounts towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letters including contingent deposit of vat amount have been deposited by the complainants with the Opposite Parties. The requisite documents have also been submitted by the complainants except in complaint bearing No.716 of 2017. During arguments, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties stated that letters dated 25.01.2018 asking the complainants in Complaint Nos.715 & 717 of 2017 to take possession, have been sent.

35. As stated above, out of aforesaid four complaints, possession of the unit, in question, in complaint bearing No.752 of 2017, in which complainants made payment on 30.03.2017, has been delivered by the Opposite Parties to the complainants on 19.04.2017.

36. Therefore, in all the aforesaid complaints, the complainants are held entitled to compensation @12% p.a. interest on the deposited amount(s) for the delay period, after 2 years plus 1 year extended period, up-to + 2 months from the date of offer of possession.

37. Further after payment and submission of documents, in the event of failure of the Opposite Parties to deliver possession, within 30 days, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainants shall be further entitled to interest @12% till actual physical possession is/was delivered.

38. The complainant(s), in the aforesaid complaints, are also entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in rendering service. In complaints bearing Nos.715, 716 and 752 of 2017, the complainant(s) are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case. However, in complaint bearing No.717 of 2017, there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.1,41,707/- against the complainants. Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit. Therefore, the complainants, in this case, are not entitled to same amount of compensation, which this Commission has been granting in cases pertaining to this project. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in this case i.e. CC/717/2017, would serve the ends of justice.

39. No other point, was urged/pressed, by the Counsel for the parties, in all the cases.

40. For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.714, 715, 716, 717 and 752 of 2017 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

714, 715, 716 and 717 of 2017

41. In these complaints, possession of the unit(s), in question, was offered to the complainant(s) in the month of October/November, 2016 and May, 2017. The amount(s) towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letters have been deposited in all the complaints. Except in complaint bearing No.716 of 2017, the requisite documents have also been submitted by the complainant(s). Admittedly, possession of the unit(s), in question, has not yet been delivered to the complainant(s). The Opposite Parties shall hand over possession within 30 days after removing the snags, if any, after deposit of amount, wherever due and submission of documents by the complainant(s).

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), after removing the snags, if any, within a period of 30 days, from the date balance payment, wherever due, is made and documents, are submitted.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed(s) 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 10.01.2014, 07.02.2014, 17.01.2015 & 02.12.2013 respectively up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 04.12.2016, 14.01.2017, 30.07.2017 & 25.12.2016 respectively, [w.e.f. due date(s) of possession in respect of deposits made up-to the said due date and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after the said due date],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 i.e. after expiry of 45 days period, till realization. Further for failure of Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment/ submission of documents by the complainant(s), 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 10^th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case, (in CC No.714, 715 & 716 of 2017) and Rs.1,00,000/- (in CC No.717 of 2017) on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and litigation costs of Rs.35,000/- 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:

752 of 2017.

42. In this case, possession of the unit, in question, stands delivered to the complainants on 19.04.2017.

The Opposite Parties, in this case, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within one month 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 complainants.
(ii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount(s), to the complainants, with effect from 08.02.2014 till 14.01.2017 [w.e.f. 08.02.2014 in respect of deposits made up-to 08.02.2014 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 08.02.2014], 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 i.e. after expiry of 45 days period, till realization.
(iii)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/-, as litigation costs, to the complainants, 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.

43. 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).

44. As regards the amount of contingent Vat deposit, the complainants have already deposited the same. The Opposite Parties shall pay interest @12% p.a. (simple) on the Vat amount deposited, to the complainants, till the demand qua the same is raised by the Government.

45. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.715, 716, 717 & 752 of 2017.

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

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

Pronounced.

26.02.2018

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/714/2017

Omvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narender Yadav & Vineet Yadav, Adv.

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319