Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/589/2017

Rajesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gopal Sharma,Adv.

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	589 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2018

 

 

Sh. Rajesh Sharma son of Late Sh. Judge Pal Sharma resident of Flat No.501-A, GH-105, Sector 20, Panchkula.

                                             .........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.

2^nd Address:-

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.

..........Opposite Party.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Tarurag Gaur, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	636 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	22.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2018

 

Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh Ahuja S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh Ahuja, resident of HQ 101 Area C/o. 99 APO through his Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Harmit Ahuja S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh Ahuja, resident of Flat No.G-32, Uppal’s Marble Arch, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh.

                                             .........Complainant.

                                  Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160009 through its Managing Director.
2. Mohit Gujral, Wholetime Director & CEO, DFL Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-3, NH-8, Gurgaon – 122002.

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

 

Argued by:

 

Mrs. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	645 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2018

 

Rajesh Kumar Tewatia (52 years) son of Harish Chander resident of House No.902, Urban Estate Sector 9, Karnal, (Haryana).

                                             .........Complainant.

                                  Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, U.T., Pin – 160009, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

 

2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Registered Office, DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

 

3. Radha Krishan, #96, Amrawati Enclave, Kalka Road, Panchkula, Haryana (Deleted vide order dated 09.10.2017)

 

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

 

Argued by:

 

 

Sh. Sandeep Malik, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Name of Opposite Party No.3 deleted vide order dated 09.10.2017.

 

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 three consumer complaints bearing Nos.589, 636 and 645 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/taken, which was taken on record.

3.         Arguments were heard in common. At the time of arguments on 30.01.2018, 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 three 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.589 of 2017, titled as ‘Rajesh Sharma Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’

5.         In brief, the facts are that the complainant booked an independent flat bearing No.D-5/12-FF, measuring 1450 sq. ft., in the project of the Opposite Party, known as DLF Valley on 19.03.2010, by paying an amount of Rs.4 Lacs. He was allowed the said unit vide allotment letter dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure C-2). An Independent Floor Buyers Agreement (Annexure C-11) was entered into between the parties on 01.12.2010 and the total price of the unit was fixed at Rs.32,91,499.75. It was stated that till 15.01.2014, an amount of Rs.28,65,303.89 was paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party.

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, failing which, the opposite party was liable to pay Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month on account of delay in possession. It was further stated that possession was not offered to the complainant till March 2017 and it was now in March 2017 that the complainant received letter dated 29.10.2016 offering possession. It was further stated that the area of the unit, in question, was arbitrarily increased by the opposite party from 1450 sq. ft. to 1575 sq. ft.. It was further stated that the Opposite Party raised illegal demand of Rs.12,79,991.57 vide Final statement of account annexed with offer of possession letter. It was stated that the complainant is an ex-service man and residing in a rented accommodation and paying monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- (Annexure C-15). It was further stated that the complainant has also taken loan for payment of the flat from Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh and is paying installments. It was further stated that the complainant has also not been given the benefit of 5% discount by the opposite party.

7.         Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the opposite party, to hand over physical and legal possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects; give 5% discount as assured vide letter dated 17.05.2010; pay compensation on account of delay in possession; declare the demand of Rs.12,79,991.57 as null and void; pay interest @24% p.a. on the total amount paid from the respective dates of deposits till handing over of possession; pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

8.         The Opposite Party, in its preliminary submissions in the written statement stated that offer of possession was sent to the complainant on 29.10.2016 but neither the complainant is taking possession nor has paid the due amount as raised in FSA dated 29.10.2016. It was further stated that the complainant filed the instant complaint in total disregard to the terms of Floor Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties. It was further stated that exit option was offered by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 15.04.2013 when construction was stayed by the Court. It was further stated that complainant is backing out from the executed contract. It was further stated that the complainant had full knowledge about the terms of Agreement dated 01.12.2010 executed between the parties. It was further stated that after receipt of occupation certificate on 05.04.2016, offer of possession was sent to the complainant on 29.10.2016. It was further stated that the complainant prayed for unfounded demands which were not as per executed terms of the Agreement. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free, as the complainant shall get possession of the floor on the same price as committed at the time of allotment of the floor through allotment letter dated 06.04.2010. It was further stated that all the losses/cost, escalation on  many  count  like  building  material  cost, labor cost, land cost etc. have been borne by the Opposite Party. 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, and after dismissal of the said litigation by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 15.04.2013 offered an exit option to the complainant by accepting refund of entire amount paid till date with 9% interest but he refused to avail the said option and apart from opting to continue with the project, also consented to the extension of time.

9.         It was stated that occupation certificates have been received for all 1775 floors and offer of possession to 1707 customers has been sent. It was further stated that out of 1707 allottees, 700 allottees have already taken possession and 155 allottees have already got their conveyance deeds executed. It was further 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 complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission; that this Commission cannot adjudicate upon the matter where the prima facie prayers are for modification of clauses of the Agreement; that the complainant is not  a consumer as the floor, in question, was purchased by him 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 Party 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 11 of the preliminary objections, it was further stated that approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans sought on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively. It was also stated that when given the option to exit vide letter dated 15.04.2013, the complainant agreed to continue with allotment and delay and, as such, he (complainant) voluntarily waived of his right to raise any grievance.

11.       The Opposite Parties moved Miscellaneous Applications under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for referring the matter to the sole arbitration, only in complaint case No.636 of 2017. The said application was disposed of by this Commission by holding that the applicability of the arbitration process would be seen at the time of final arguments in the main case.  

12.       On merits, while admitting the factum of allotment of the unit, in question, to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 06.04.2010 and execution of the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement on 01.12.2010, it was stated that the price of the property as per SOP is Rs.36,18,830.16 plus service tax for 1450 sq. ft. It was denied that the price of the unit, in question, was Rs.32,91,499.75. It was further stated that due to increase in the area, the total price of the property was Rs.42,69,796.93 plus service tax for an area of 1575 sq. ft. It was further stated that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.28,65,308.89. It was further stated that there was DLI of Rs.2,81,902.79 levied against the account of the complainant for delay of 4523 days in remitting installments.

13.       It was admitted that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, possession of the allotted unit, was to be handed over to the complainant within 24 months from the date of signing of the Agreement subject to force majeure conditions or due to reasons beyond the control of Opposite Party 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 29.10.2016 was sent to the complainant and the demand raised was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was denied that the possession was offered in March 2017. It was further stated that government employee discount of 5% to the tune of Rs.1,61,438/- was uploaded in the 9^th installment. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

14.       The complainant filed rejoinder, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.

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

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

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

18.       It is evident that vide allotment letter dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure C-2), the complainant was allotted Independent Floor No.DVF-D5/12-FF-217 in DLF Valley, Panchkula and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between him and the Opposite Party on 01.12.2010 (Annexure C-11). He was also given 5% government employee discount vide letter dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure C-10). The total price of the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.32,91,499.75, besides other charges, securities, deposits and taxes etc. as specified in the Application/Agreement. In all, a sum of Rs.28,65,308.89 has actually been paid to the Opposite Party, as mentioned in the Chart showing details of the property, in question, placed on record, under the signatures of the Counsel for the Opposite Party(ies), at the time of arguments on 30.01.2018. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Opposite Party was 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 is also on record that vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3 at page 91 of the written statement), the Opposite Party sought further time of 12 months, in addition to 24 months, to complete the construction work. Vide aforesaid letter, option was also given to the complainant to seek refund alongwith 9% interest. It is a fact duly borne on record that there was stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012 (Annexures R-8 & R-9), which in turn, delayed the completion of the project. The Opposite Party has claimed that this being a force majeure condition, it is entitled to benefit of delay of one year. The possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Party to the complainant on 29.10.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure C-13/R-1 colly.) and the instant complaint has been filed on 04.08.2017. The complainant has alleged that he received the aforesaid offer of possession letter dated 29.10.2016 in March 2017. The Opposite Party has categorically denied this averment in its written statement. Similar averment has been made by the complainant in the rejoinder. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to corroborate his averment qua receipt of aforesaid letter in March 2017. The onus to prove the averment made is on the complainant by way of any documentary proof or letter written agitating delayed receipt of offer of possession letter but he has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence. Therefore, the contention of the complainant, being afterthought, stands rejected.

 

19.        The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, in the instant case, was executed between the parties on 01.12.2010 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 Party 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) (Annexures R-6 & R-7), is not relevant.

 

20.       An objection has been raised by the Opposite Party that the complainant, when given the option to seek refund with 9% simple interest, agreed to continue with allotment and also agreed to delay and, as such, he waived of his rights to raise any grievance. This plea of the Opposite Party is not well based. As admitted by the Opposite Party itself, while seeking option vide the alleged letter dated 15.04.2013, the complainant was informed of delay and extension of one year was sought. One year extended period expired on 30.11.2013 whereas the possession was offered on 29.10.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure R-1 colly.). Had the Opposite Party handed over possession before the stipulated period of two years in the Agreement plus one year extended period i.e. by 30.11.2013, position would have been different and in that situation, it would have been accepted that the complainant had waived of his rights to raise grievance. The possession has been offered after delay of 2 years 11 months, even after one year extended period. The plea being devoid of merit is not tenable.

21.           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.

22.       Another objection raised by the Opposite Party 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-4) was made by the complainant 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 01.12.2010 at Chandigarh. Since, as per documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, 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 complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.

23.         In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC), the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to him, to file the complaint. The submission of the Opposite Party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

24.         The next objection raised by the Opposite Party was that the complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the complainant was virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the present complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party, 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 Party, it was 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 complainant has the remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by 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 Party and its deficiency in rendering service. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainant is trying to rewrite/modify the terms of the Agreement. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

25.       To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Party 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 ‘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 Party, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs.  Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

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

 

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

26.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there is delay in offering/delivering possession of the flat, in question. Clauses 11(a) & 11(b) of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 01.12.2010 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 Party, it was liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). In the event of failure to deliver possession, as per Clause 15 of the Agreement, the complainant was entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also admitted that above fact of granting stay resulted into delay in construction at the site.

27.       The Opposite Party has specifically pleaded that there was stay by the Hon’ble Apex Court from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 (Annexures R-8 & R-9), 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 30.11.2013. No justification whatsoever for delay in offering possession beyond 30.11.2013 has been explained by the Opposite Party. The argument of the Opposite Party 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 01.12.2010 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Party 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 Party 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 Party. Possession of the unit, in question, having been offered vide offer of possession letter dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure C-13/R-2 colly.), clearly, there is inordinate delay (around 2 years 11 months) in offering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant. Delay in offering possession to the complainant is an act of clear deficiency of the Opposite Party.

28.       It may be stated here that while offering possession vide letter dated 29.10.2016, the Opposite Party raised a demand of Rs.13,62,757.57 i.e. (Rs.12,79,991.57 + Rs.82,766.00), which included contingent deposit of Vat of Rs.22,916/-. As stated during arguments, the complainant has not deposited any amount towards the aforesaid demand and the requisite documents have also not been executed or submitted by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Consequently, possession of the unit, in question, has not been delivered to him (complainant) till date by the Opposite Party.

29.       It may be stated here that apart from increase in area of the unit, in question, the complainant has also challenged the other demands raised in the offer of possession letter. In the instant case, 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, 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.

30.         As regards averment of the complainant of not extending him the benefit of 5% discount, the Opposite Party, in its written statement, has stated that 5% discount of Rs.1,61,438/- was uploaded in the 9^th installment. This plea of the Opposite Party also stands corroborated by a Note given on the 2^nd Page of Final Statement of Account (Page 88 of the written statement), which reads thus:-

“(included Early Payment Rebate Credited 1,686.88 & Change In Area Credited 0.00 & Change in EDC 0.00 & Change In IDC 1,419.59 & Down Payment Rebate Credited 0.00 & Special Rebate Credited 0.00 & Amount Transferred 0.00 & Form 16 B Credited 0.00 & Corporate Discount 1,61,438.00)”

 

It may be stated here that corporate discount of 5% was not to be granted separately. The same has been duly given by the Opposite Party in the Final Statement of Account. As such, the plea of the complainant does not hold good.  

31.         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 Party 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 01.12.2010 i.e. by 30.11.2013. There is, thus, inordinate delay of around 2 years 11 months, even beyond the extended period. As already stated above, possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Party on 29.10.2016. Clearly there is delay in offering possession on account of which, the complainant deserves to be compensated. It may be stated here that 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.

 

32.         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.  

33.       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 complainant is 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. 01.02.2013 up-to + 2 months from the date of offer of possession. The possession having been offered on 29.10.2016, the complainant shall be entitled to compensation up-to plus 2 months from 29.10.2016 i.e. 28.12.2016 (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period). The complainant is, 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 Party to deliver possession within 30 days after deposit of due payment and submission of documents by the complainant, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainant shall be further entitled to interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount till possession is delivered.

34.       Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Party, stated that the Opposite Party is 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 Party 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).

35.         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 Party, by the date promised in the Agreement and within one year extended period. The complainant has been compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period as stated above. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainant shall also get the benefit of escalation in price of the unit. In the instant case, there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.2,81,902/- against the complainant. Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit. Therefore, the complainant is 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/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant would serve the ends of justice.

36.       In the connected two complaints bearing Nos.636 and 645 of 2017, the possession of the unit(s), in question, has been delivered to the complainant(s), as per detail given in the following table:-

TABLE

 

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period	Date on which possession offered	Whether amount deposited after offer of possession.	Whether documents submitted after offer of possession	Date on which possession delivered.
A.	B.	C.	D.	E.	F.	G.	H.
1.	636/2017	11.11.2010	10.11.2013	15.11.2016	Yes on 28.02.2017	Yes	12.05.2017
2.	645/2017	24.01.2011 (2nd Allottee) (29.03.2012)	23.01.2014	15.11.2016	Yes on 01.03.2017	Yes	28.06.2017

 

37.       In aforesaid two complaints, amounts towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letters have been deposited by the complainants with the Opposite Parties. The requisite documents have also been submitted by the complainants. 

38.       As stated above, in these complaints, possession of the unit(s), in question, has been delivered by the Opposite Parties to the complainants on 12.05.2017 & 28.06.2017 respectively.

39.       Further, in complaint No.636 of 2017, Sale Deed qua the unit, in question, has also been got executed on 28.06.2017.

40.       Therefore, in aforesaid two complaints viz.636 and 645 of 2017, 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.

41.       In Complaint Case No.636 of 2017, the Opposite Parties, in the Final Statement of Account, have given a credit of Rs.8,95,716/- on account of delay compensation. The said amount shall be deducted from the compensation amount arrived at by way of interest @12% for delay period.

42.        The complainant(s), in the aforesaid complaints, are also entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in rendering service. The compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case, would serve the ends of justice.

43.       In Complaint Case No.645 of 2017, the complainant has alleged delay in transfer of the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.01.2011 in his favour, which was actually transferred on 29.03.2012 after complete one year. The complainant had sought penalty @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month for delay in possession in Relief Clause (a) and refund of transfer fee of Rs.1,48,842/- vide Relief Clause (c). The complainant has also sought compensation by way of interest for the delayed period. On 30.08.2017, Counsel for the complainant stated that aforesaid Prayer Clauses (a) & (c) be deleted. Accordingly, the aforesaid prayer clauses were ordered to be deleted. In any case, delay in execution/endorsement of agreement, in favour of the complainant, has not caused any loss/prejudice to the complainant because, the complainant is entitled to compensation after two years plus one year extended period from 24.01.2011.  

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

45.      For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.589, 636 and 645 of 2017 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

589 of 2017

 

 

46.       In this complaint, possession of the unit, in question, was offered to the complainant in the month of October, 2016. Neither the amount towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letter has been deposited nor the requisite documents have been submitted by the complainant. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, has not yet been delivered to the complainant. The Opposite Party shall hand over possession within 30 days after removing the snags, if any, after deposit of amount and submission of documents by the complainant.

            The Opposite Party, in this case, is 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, after removing the snags, if any, within a period of 30 days, from the date balance payment, is made and documents, are submitted.
	(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, with effect from 01.12.2013 up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 28.12.2016, [w.e.f. 01.12.2013 in respect of deposits made up-to 01.12.2013 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 01.12.2013],  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.             Further for failure of Opposite Party to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment/ submission of documents by the complainant, for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.
	(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and litigation costs  of Rs.35,000/-, to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
Consumer Complaint bearing No: 636 of 2017.

 

47.       In this case, possession of the unit, in question, stands delivered to the complainant on 12.05.2017 and the Sale Deed also stood executed on 28.06.2017.

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

(i)

To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, with effect from, 11.11.2013 till 14.01.2017 [w.e.f. 11.11.2013 in respect of deposits made up-to 11.11.2013 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 11.11.2013], 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.       (Since the Opposite Parties have given a credit of Rs.8,95,716/- on account of delay compensation, this amount shall be reduced/deducted from the compensation amount arrived at by way of interest @12% on the deposited amount for the delay period).       After payment and submission of documents, for delay beyond 30 days till delivery of possession on 12.05.2017, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount,  shall be payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., till payment is made.

(ii)

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, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

Consumer Complaint bearing No: 645 of 2017.

 

48.       In this case, possession of the unit, in question, stands delivered to the complainant.

            Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, 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 complainant.
(ii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant, with effect from 24.01.2014 till 14.01.2017 [w.e.f. 24.01.2014 in respect of deposits made up-to 24.01.2014 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 24.01.2014], 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, till realization.             Further for failure of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment/ submission of documents by the complainant, for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, till the date possession was delivered, shall be payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., till payment is made.
(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 complainant, 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.

49.       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).

50.       As regards the amount of contingent Vat deposit, the complainant(s) who have not deposited the same, shall furnish an affidavit to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. The complainant(s) shall deposit amount of contingent vat within three weeks from the date the same is paid by Opposite Parties to the Government and the complainant(s) are informed of this fact. Delay in remittance, beyond three weeks from the receipt of notice, shall attract simple interest @12% per annum.

51.       Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.636 and 645 both of 2017.

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

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

Pronounced.

08.02.2018

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Ad