Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/434/2016

Amit Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Piyush Aggarwal, Adv.

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	434 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

Sh. Amit  Mittal S/o Late Sh. V. K. Mittal R/o #1039, Sector-7, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                            .........Complainant

                                 Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office - DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh.Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	435 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

Om Parkash S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh R/o H.No.178, Sector 2, Rohtak.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	436 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

Kamlesh W/o Dalip Singh, R/o H.No.826, Sector-1, HUDA, Rohtak, Haryana.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	437 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Dai Ram R/o H.No.19, Sector 8, Karnal.

 

…..Complainant.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	439 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

Ajit Singh Rathee S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, H.No.1281, Sector-3, Rohtak, Haryana.

 

…..Complainant.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	440 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar Sura S/o Sh. Nand Lal sura R/o H.No.23, Village Gadhwa, P.O. Gaindawas, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

 

…..Complainant.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	447 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	10.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

1. K. L. kumar S/ Late Sh. Ram Dayal,
2. Gaurav Kumar S/o Sh. K. L. Kumar,

Both R/o H.No.803, Sector 8, Panchkula.

 

…..Complainants.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Rajiv Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	448 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	10.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

1. Shashi Kiran W/o Sh. K. L. Kumar,
2. Sharad Kumar S/o Sh. K. L. Kumar,

Both R/o H.No.803, Sector 8, Panchkula.

 

…..Complainants.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. 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. Rajiv Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	276 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2016

 

1. Monika Singla W/o Sh. Amit Singla,
2. Amit Singla S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Dass Singla,

Both R/o House No.2, Sector 18, Panchkula.

 

…..Complainants.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited through its Managing Director/Director, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase – III, National Highway 8, Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Director, SCO No.101-102, DLF City Centre, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

4. LIC Housing Finance Ltd., (LIC HFL) through its Branch Manager, SCO No.2445-2446, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

......Performa Opposite Party.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji and Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

 

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, following nine consumer complaints:-

1	CC/434/2016	Amit Mittal	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
2	CC/435/2016	Om Parkash	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
3	CC/436/2016	Kamlesh	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd.
4	CC/437/2016	Rajender Singh	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
5	CC/439/2016	Ajit Singh Rathee	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
6	CC/440/2016	Rajesh Kumar Sura	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
7	CC/447/2016	K. L. Kumar & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
8	CC/448/2016	Shashi Kiran & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
9	CC/276/2016	Monika Singla & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. &  Ors.

 

2.          It may be stated here that arguments in complaint cases at Sr. No.1 to 8 above were heard on 17.10.2016 whereas in CC/276/2016 at Sr. No.9, arguments were heard on 21.10.2016. Since the facts involved in the above nine complaints, by and large, are virtually the same, as they relate to the same project, namely, “DLF Valley, Panchkula”, therefore, these complaints are being disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

3.          Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.434 of 2016, titled as ‘Amit  Mittal Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and another.’

4.          In brief, the facts are that in the year 2010, after giving their thoughtful consideration, the complainant and his family planned to buy an independent floor, anticipating the future needs and desires of a growing family. The complainant agreed to purchase an independent floor bearing No.DVF-E6/18-GF, Block-E, measuring 1450 sq. ft. in the project of the Opposite Parties, namely, “The Valley, Panchkula”, for an amount of Rs.40,93,567.82, which was to be paid as per the scheduled plan prepared by the Opposite Parties. After completing certain formalities, the complainant paid Rs.4 Lacs as allotment money on 22.03.2010 and rest of the money was to be paid in terms of the payment schedule. The Opposite Parties got the Agreement signed from the complainant on 24.01.2011. Before signing the Agreement, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.11,18,104.57 and repeatedly requested the Opposite Parties to get the agreement signed, which was got done after one year i.e. on 24.01.2011. It was assured by the representative of the Opposite Parties that the period before which the possession was to be delivered to the complainant was 24 months, calculated from the date of execution of the Agreement. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, 24 months period, for handing over the actual possession of the apartment, had elapsed on 24.01.2013.

5.          As per the demand notices sent by the Opposite Parties, the complainant deposited the due instalments well before the end date regularly and by 23.01.2016, out of Rs.40,93,567.82, a total sum of Rs.37,78,809.90 i.e. more than 90% of the total payment, had already been paid by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant also took loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from HDFC Bank for the regular payment of the property in dispute and he is paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- every month for the repayment of the loan amount.

6.          It was further stated that when the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for possession, they refused to hand over the same and despite lapse of more than five years from the date of entering into Agreement, possession is still awaited. 

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, complete in all respects after obtaining all due permissions and certificates including the Completion Certificate inter-alia from the concerned authorities; pay interest calculated @12% 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 complainant; pay compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet of the saleable area for delaying the possession along with interest @24% per annum from 24.01.2011; award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance caused to the complainant due to the actions/omissions of Opposite Parties; pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for delay in handing over the possession; Rs.70,000/- 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 submitted that the occupation certificate from the competent authority has already been received by them on 05.04.2016 (Annexure-R/1) and the offer of possession of the floor, in question, was under process. It was further stated that the complainant had full knowledge about the executed terms of the Agreement dated 24.01.2011. It was further stated that out of 1791 floors, occupation certificate(s) of 1320 units had already been received and offer of possession to the allottees has already been started. It was further stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and full housekeeping and maintenance services were being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle. It was further stated that 31% cost escalation of the construction as well 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price of the allotted floor be allowed. 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 flat to the complainant in March 2010. It was further stated that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction activity 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. It was further stated that after dismissal of litigation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012, the Opposite Parties gave an exit option vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3) to the complainant for refunding   the  amount  alongwith  9%  interest  but  the complainant opted to continue with the project and consented for extension.

9.          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 and the complainant filed this complaint to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the complaint and pass orders on the relief claimed. The other preliminary objections raised are that the complainant is not a consumer as the floor, in question, was booked by him, not for personal use but for investment purposes and earning profits and Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for delay caused due to force majeure conditions. It was 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 the vacation of stay, the construction work again resumed and, therefore, delay in handing over possession was due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sought approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, which was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively. It was further stated that the complainant waived off his right by not opting for   exit policy.

10.        On merits, it was stated that the property number E6/18 GF was allotted vide allotment letter dated 26.03.2010 and Builder Buyer Agreement was executed on 24.01.2011. It was further stated that the complainant, on his own will/understanding, had purchased the flat, in question. It was further stated that all the bookings were done in 2010, the Agreement was executed only after receiving 25% of the total amount. It was further stated that the complainant delayed the payment of Rs.2,106/- for 23 days. It was further stated that possession was to be offered within 24 months (2 years) as stipulated in the Agreement unless there was delay due to a force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Agreement. It was further stated that as per Clause 43 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were not liable or responsible for not performing any of their obligation or undertakings as provided in the Agreement, if such performance is prevented due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was delayed on account of force majeure conditions, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. 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.

11.        The complainant did not file any rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties.

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

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

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

15.        It is evident, on record, that the complainant was   allotted   independent   floor  No.DVF-E-6/18  (Ground Floor) with Parking No.P-GF in DLF Valley and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure C-1) was executed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh, as per which, the total price was Rs.37,26,499.75 i.e. Basic Sale Price Rs.31,68,974.96 + External Development Charges of Rs.2,96,669.92 + Rs.2,60,854.87 as interest on above components. In addition to the total price and other charges mentioned in the Application/Agreement, Annexure-III to the Agreement, charges as mentioned in Clause 1.4 of the Agreement i.e. Membership Fee Rs.30,000/- for five years, Rs.6,000/- per annum as Annual Club Charges and Rs.20,000/- as refundable security deposit and charges/taxes as per Clause 1.11, 1.12 and 1.15 etc., were payable. Further, as per Clause 11(a), 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. There was stay on construction activities by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, on account of which, the Opposite Parties sought extension of time for one year vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3), to which, the complainant agreed. The option to get refund was not exercised by the complainant. The plea of the Opposite Parties that by not exercising exit option, during 2013, the complainant waived off his right to raise any grievance, is not well based. While seeking option vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3), the complainant was informed of delay and extension of one year was sought. One year extended period expired on 23.01.2014 and still the possession has not been offered. Had the Opposite Parties handed over possession before 23.01.2014, position would have been different and in that situation, it would have been accepted that the complainant had waived off his right to raise grievance. The plea being devoid of merit is not tenable.

16.        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. They are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and their prayer for allowing them escalation cost is not only unfair but it also 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.

17.        Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 24.01.2011 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 that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained the Opposite Parties from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010, is not relevant. As regards the specific allegation of complainant(s), raised in complaints bearing Nos.436/2016, 437/2016, 439/2016, 440/2016, 447/2016 and 448/2016 that construction quality was very poor and most of the promised services/ amenities/facilities were lacking, no cogent evidence by way of report of an Engineer/Architect in support of allegation has been brought on record. In the absence of cogent evidence, the bald assertion made by the complainant(s) cannot be given any cognizance. This point was also not pressed during arguments.

18.        An objection was raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complainant filed this complaint leveling 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 entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to hand over possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Section 2 (1) (o) of 1986 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”

 

19.        From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 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 1986 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, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, can be availed of by him, as he 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. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable.

20.        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, he would not fall within the definition of a 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. The complainant who is an original allottee, is seeking possession, which means that he purchased the same for his residence. The complainant has specifically stated that he had planned to buy an independent floor, anticipating the future needs and desire of a growing family. 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 Hon’ble 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.  

21.         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 24.01.2011 (Annexure C-1), reads 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 an admitted fact, that by making reference to above fact of granting stay, which resulted into  delay in construction at the site, consent of the complainant was sought, vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure  R-3), to complete construction within further 12 months. Option was also given to the complainant, to seek refund of the deposited amount, alongwith simple interest @9% P.A. The complainant exercised former option and continued to make payment(s) thereafter and by the time, the complaint was filed, they had paid an amount of Rs.37,78,809.90 as per Customer Ledger (Annexure C-2) and the balance payable is shown as Rs.3,14,757.92. In his self-attested affidavit dated 08.08.2016 filed by the complainant before this Commission on 17.10.2016, he has testified payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.37,78,809.90 to the Opposite Parties, receipt whereof has not been denied by the Opposite Parties in their written statement. Reading of written statement makes it very clear, that still no firm date to hand over possession of the unit has been given. Taking into account 12 months extension, the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession on or before 23.01.2014, but not later than that. Permission for occupation of the unit, in question, has been accorded to the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure R-1). Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, was neither offered by the date of filing the instant complaint nor till date, despite payment of more than 90% of the sale consideration by the complainant. 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 23.01.2014, 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 their control, is not tenable.  The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 24.01.2011 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 (almost 2 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. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of more than two years beyond initial stipulated period of two years and one year extended period in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainant.

22.         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 have not delivered 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 24.01.2011 i.e. by 23.01.2014. No doubt, in the Buyer’s Agreement, some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating  the  complainant 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.  If the argument of the Opposite Parties is to be accepted, it would lead to an 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 its other business venture, at nominal interest of 3 to 4 percent, 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.

23.        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 reads 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.”

24.        Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case, 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.

25.         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 him, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to him, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date in the Agreement or latest by 23.01.2014 i.e. within the extended period. The complainant purchased the unit, with the hope that he will have a house to live in. The possession of unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainant, till date, what to speak of delivery thereof. The compensation in the sum of Rs.5+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. Under these circumstances, 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, if granted, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

26.        Details of date of execution of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement(s); whether complainant(s) are original allottees; due date for possession after one year extended period; date of receiving Occupation Certificate and DLI, in respect of connected complaint cases No.436 of 2016, 437/2016, 447/2016, 448/2016 and 276/2016, are given hereunder:-

TABLE - A

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Due date for possession after one year extended period	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)	DLI
1	436/2016	05.01.2011	Yes	04.01.2014	13.01.2016	-
2	437/2016	14.12.2010	Yes	13.12.2013	13.01.2016	-
3	447/2016	24.01.2011	Yes	23.01.2014	19.07.2016	-
4	448/2016	12.01.2011	Yes	11.01.2014	19.07.2016	-
5	276/2016	22.12.2010	2nd Allottee (28.03.2013)	21.12.2013	19.07.2016	15,537.97 (2620 days)

 

In Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2016, the complainants purchased the unit from previous allottee and paid transfer charges in the sum of Rs.3,25,844/- on 31.01.2013 as demanded by the Opposite Parties. The flat was transferred in favour of the complainants on 28.03.2013. It has been argued that they (complainants) were entitled to waiver of transfer charges. The policy of the Opposite Parties for waiver of transfer charges was for a limited period of 30 days from 01.04.2013 to 30.04.2013 as is evident from letter dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure C-8). Since the complainants applied for transfer of unit and paid the amount and also submitted documents on 31.01.2013, they were not entitled to waiver of transfer charges.

27.        The occupation certificates of the unit(s), in question, have been obtained by the Opposite Parties in all the above five complaints. However, possession of the unit(s) in question, has not been offered/delivered. Therefore, in view of the observations made in the preceding paras, the complainant(s), in these five cases, are also entitled to possession of the unit(s), in question, complete in all respects on payment of amount due, and 12% interest for the delayed period beyond three years till possession is handed over. In each of these five complaints, the complainant(s) are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment. Besides above, the complainant(s) are also held entitled to litigation cost to the tune of Rs.35,000/- in each of the above complaints.

28.        In one complaint bearing No.435 of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table-B below, possession of the unit has been offered by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure C-5):-

 

TABLE - B

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Date on which possession offered	Demand raised while offering possession.	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)	DLI
1	435/2016	20.12.2010	Yes	08.06.2016	Rs.11,09,867.10 + Rs.90,859.00 + Rs.3,05,128.00 (stamp duty & registration Charges)	13.01.2016	Rs.1,95,361/- (1689 days)

 

             In this case, the Opposite Parties while offering possession of the unit(s), in question, also raised demand as indicated above.

29.        As regards demand raised in the sum of Rs.5,96,900/-  on account of change/increase in the area in terms of Clause 10 of the Agreement, the complainant has submitted that since increase in area was more than 15%, in terms of Clause 10 of the Agreement, his (complainant) consent was required and, therefore, the demand raised on this account was illegal. As the revised saleable area is 1729 Sq. Ft. as against the initial area of 1475 Sq. Ft. indicated in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, increase in area is slightly higher than 15%. It may be stated here that there is nothing on record to show that after receipt of offer of possession vide letter dated 08.06.2016, the complainant ever agitated the demand raised on this account by sending any letter/email to the Opposite Parties. He has also not disputed the increase in area by adducing some cogent evidence by way of report of an Architect or Engineer. In our opinion, the objection raised is a technical one. No doubt, the Opposite Parties did not comply with the requirement of seeking consent of the complainant, the fact remains that the complainant is seeking possession. It is not the case of the complainant that on account of increase in area, he (complainant), instead of seeking possession, is seeking refund. The complainant could dispute the increase on the basis of cogent evidence by way of report/affidavit of an Engineer/Architect but nothing of that sort has been done. Therefore, the demand raised by the Opposite Parties to this effect, is legal and tenable. In the absence of any cogent evidence by the complainant that increase in area was actually not there, demand of Rs.5,96,900/- cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, the complainant is bound to pay the same.

30.        During arguments, the Counsel for the parties were in agreement that stamp duty and registration charges, shall be payable at the time of execution of the sale deed of the unit, in question, after possession is handed over; charges in the sum of Rs.18,000/- on account of advocate fee etc. would not be payable by the complainant, but incidental expenses, which may be incurred at the time of registration of sale deed, shall be borne by the complainant. In regard to contingent deposit of VAT also, it was agreed that same shall be payable by the complainant only as and when the same is paid by the Opposite Parties to the Government. Thus, at this stage, the complainant is held liable to pay the demand raised minus contingent vat, stamp duty, registration charges and advocate charges, within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In this complaint also, the complainant is held entitled to interest @12% for the delayed period, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment (there has been DLI of Rs.1,95,361/- due to delay of 1689 days) and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/-.  

31.        However, in two complaints bearing Nos.439 of 2016 and 440 of 2016 (as indicated in Table ‘C’ below) the complainant(s) have sought refund of the deposited amounts. Details of amount(s) deposited; date of Agreement; due date for offering possession after one year extended period; whether possession offered; delay in offering possession, whether the complainant is first allottee and DLI; are given hereunder:-

 

TABLE - B

Sr. No.	Description/ Details	439/2016 (Ajit Singh Rathee Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.)	440/2016 (Rajesh Kumar Sura Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.)
1.	Amount deposited. (Rs.)	39,10,545/-	70,74,279.66
2.	Date of Agreement.	25.11.2010	05.03.2014
3.	Due date for offering possession.	24.11.2013	04.03.2016
4.	Whether possession offered	No	No
5.	Delay in offering possession	Around 3 Years	5 Months
6.	Whether first allottee	Yes	Yes
7.	DLI		Rs.2,35,064.27 (1545 days)

 

 

32.       In Complaint No.439 of 2016, as is evident from record, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 25.11.2010. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Company was to endeavor to complete construction of the independent floor 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. Period of 24 months stipulated in the Agreement plus the extended period of 12 months from the date of execution of the agreement expired on 24.11.2013. The possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered till date, meaning thereby that there is already delay of around 3 years in offering possession. No reason or circumstances, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties for such inordinate 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 complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them with the Opposite Parties. 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  complainants 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. Therefore, in this complaint, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount alongwith interest @15% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till realization besides compensation for physical harassment and mental agony in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.35,000/- each.

33.        In Complaint No.440 of 2016, the unit, in question, was booked on 27.03.2012 and the same was allotted on 10.04.2012. However, admittedly, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 05.03.2014. The complainant also took loan from the HDFC Bank for making part payment towards the price of the unit, in question. There is also a DLI of Rs.2,35,064.27 against the complainant on account of delay of 1545 days in remitting some installments. The Opposite Parties in Para 9 of their written statement stated that the complainant never objected to the time gap between the date of booking of the flat and the date of the execution of the Agreement. The Opposite Parties applied for grant of Occupation Certificate on 19.01.2016, which was received on 02.05.2016. Admittedly, till date, possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainant. The complainant has placed on record, two letters dated 30.04.2012 and 15.02.2012 (Annexures C-3 and C-5 respectively), allegedly written to them (Opposite Parties), whereby, he requested the Opposite Parties to execute the Agreement. The Opposite Parties, in para 8 of their written statement have categorically denied receipt of these letters and stated that the complainant, being an educated person, signed the Agreement after satisfying himself with all the contents of the Agreement and if the complainant could file the consumer complaint, now seeking refund of his amount, then what stopped him from filing the same at that time, if he was so aggrieved with the actions of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant be put to strict proof of proving these alleged documents. It may be stated here that the aforesaid letters are simply print-outs taken from a printer. The complainant did not aver in his complaint as to by which mode these letters were sent to the Opposite Parties and when these were received in their office. The Photostat copies of the letters actually sent have not been placed on record, which could establish the case of the complainant. The complainant applied for the flat on 26/27.03.2012 and before execution of Buyer’s Agreement, the complainant had made substantial payment. Though delay in execution of Agreement seems to be partly on account of stay by Hon’ble Supreme Court as is evident from letter dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure C-4) but delay partly is attributable to the Opposite Parties and is an act of deficiency of the Opposite Parties. The Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 05.03.2014 and computing 24 months period for delivering possession, the possession of the unit, in question, was to be handed over by the Opposite Parties by 04.03.2016, when the period of 24 months in handing over the same expired. Admittedly, possession has still not been offered to the complainant by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, as already held in the preceding paragraph  32, in this case also, the complainant is held entitled to refund of the amount alongwith interest @15% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till realization besides compensation for physical harassment and mental agony in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost in the sum of Rs.35,000/-. The compensation for mental agony and physical harassment has been awarded keeping in view the delay in remitting installments as indicated in Table – C.

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

35.        For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing No.434/2016, 435/2016, 436/2016, 437/2016, 439/2016, 440/2016, 447/2016, 448/2016 and 276/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

CC/434/2016	Amit Mittal	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/436/2016	Kamlesh	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd.
CC/437/2016	Rajinder Singh	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/447/2016	K. L. Kumar & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/448/2016	Shashi Kiran & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/276/2016	Monika Singla & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. &  Ors.

 

 

             The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, 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 four months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), 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 amount(s), to the complainant(s), from 24.01.2014, 05.01.2014, 14.12.2013, 24.01.2014, 12.01.2014 and 22.12.2013, respectively till 31.10.2016, 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.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s)  w.e.f. 01.11.2016, 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/-, 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 amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

 

             However, the complaint case bearing No.276 of 2016 is dismissed against Opposite Party No.4 (LIC Housing Finance Ltd.) with no order as to cost.

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

 

CC/435/2016

Om Parkash

Vs

DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

              In this complaint, payment against demand raised vide offer of possession letter, has not been deposited by the complainant. The demand, so raised, except the stamp duty & registration charges, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges, shall be deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

             The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit, allotted in favour of the complainant, complete in all respects, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date  balance payment is made by the complainant.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant.
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from 20.12.2013 till 31.10.2016, 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.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, to the complainant  w.e.f. 01.11.2016, 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

            In this complaint, as agreed between the parties, the Advocate Charges shall not be charged by the Opposite Parties. The actual expenditure for registration of Sale Deed besides Stamp duty and Registration charges, shall, however, be borne by the complainant. The demand of contingent vat, shall be payable as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.

             Since the demand raised has, by and large, been held to be justified, in case wherever, there is delay in making payment towards demand raised beyond two months, period taken beyond two months shall be excluded for the purpose of payment of 12% interest compensation on delayed period.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

CC/439/2016	Ajit Singh Rathee	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/440/2016	Rajesh Kumar Sura	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Pachkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

 

 

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

(i)   To refund the amounts of Rs.39,10,545.00 and Rs.70,74,279.66 respectively, alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the respective complainant(s), 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.2,00,000/- (in CC/439/2016) and Rs.1,00,000/- (in CC/440/2016) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs 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 amounts alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

            However, it is made clear that in case, the complainant(s) has 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 complainant(s).

36.        Certified copy of this order, be placed on the files of consumer complaints bearing Nos.435/2016, 436/2016, 437/2016, 439/2016, 440/2016, 447/2016, 448/2016 and 276/2016.

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

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

Pronounced.

27.10.2016

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

         MEMBER

Ad