Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/168/2016

Sunil Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Tarun Gupta, Dr. Neetu Gupta, Adv.

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                     UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint  No.	168 of 2016
Date of Institution	28.04.2016
Date of Decision	04.08.2016

 

 

1. Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Jain r/o #1592, Sector 21, Panchkula.
2. Sandeepa Jain WQ/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain r/o #1592, Sector 21, Panchkula.

                                                       .…Complainants.

Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Office at 2^nd Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Authorised Representative.

…..Opposite Parties.

Argued by:Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint  No.	170 of 2016
Date of Institution	28.04.2016
Date of Decision	04.08.2016

 

 

1. Col. Naresh Kumar Kohli S/o Late Shri Ram Raksh Pal Kohli R/o 510 Platinum Towers, Trishla Road, Peer Muchhalla, NAC Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab - 160104.
2. Mrs. Rashmi Kohli W/o Col. Naresh Kumar Kohli R/o 510 Platinum Towers, Trishla Road, Peer Muchhalla, NAC Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab - 160104.

                                                .…Complainants.

Versus

 

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

…..Opposite Parties.

 

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

MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

              Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

               

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              In brief, the facts of the case, are that in order to own a residential house for family and personal use, the complainants purchased a residential independent floor No.DVF-E2/9-GF (hereinafter to be referred as the unit) having area of 1550 sq. ft. in DLF Valley, Panchkula vide allotment letter dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties on 28.02.2011 (Annexure C-2) at Chandigarh and the price payable was Rs.42,34,600/-. It was further stated that the complainants opted for construction linked payment plan. It was further stated that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be given by Opposite Party No.1 within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. It was further stated that the complainants received a letter dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure C-4) from Opposite Party No.1 informing that due to directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 19.04.2012, the construction activity had been stopped. It was further stated that vide letter dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure C-5), it was subsequently informed by the Opposite Parties that the stay on construction activity was vacated on 12.12.2012. It was further stated that though the stay was operative for only 8 months, however, Opposite Party No.1 sought 12 months more time to complete the project in addition to 24 months. It was further stated that even after three years from the date of execution of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, which they were bound to deliver on or before 27.02.2014. It was further stated that the possession was ultimately offered by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that the final area of the unit was also increased to 1750 sq. ft i.e. by 200 sq. ft. and the possession letter did not show any amount payable to the complainants or adjusted in the demand due to delay in offer of possession. It was further stated that increase in the area of the unit has resulted in extra financial burden of Rs.5 Lacs, which amounted to unfair trade practice. It was further stated that complainant No.1 objected to the increase in area vide email dated 26.02.2016 and asked for the revised plan, which was sent through email by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that as per the revised plan, the Opposite Parties have increased the Verandah Area.

2.           It was further stated that as per Clause 10 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were bound to intimate the complainants with regard to change in area prior to the grant of occupation certificate so that the complainants could file objections to the proposed change in area. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

3.           It was further stated that after receiving offer of possession, the complainants went to the site but shocked to see that the possession offered is nothing but a sham possession as the basic amenities like electricity and other fixtures as detailed out in Annexure V of the Agreement have not been provided. It was further stated that there are no window glasses, flooring, MCB, electricity switch boards, taps, whitewash, functional toilets & kitchens, developed green area. It was further stated that at present, the actual possession of the unit, in question, alongwith all facilities is not likely to be offered for one more year. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have not completed the construction work as per the promises and assurances made in the Agreement. It was further stated that the unit, in question, is not ready to move in.

4.           It was further stated that the amount demanded on the strength of Clause 1.11 in the possession letter is also illegal as no details/calculations have been provided to the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants asked the representative of Opposite Party No.1 as to when all the development work would be completed at the site, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

5.           When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.42,41,101.31 alongwith interest @18% per annum, from respective dates of deposits; pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

6.           The Opposite Parties in their written statement took up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complainants, being investors, had purchased the flat, in question, for earning profits, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, they do not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of 1986 Act; that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and the dispute being of contractual nature, could not be considered under the C. P. Act. Apart from above objections, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, during arguments, also took an objection as regards referring the matter to the Arbitrator as there exists an Arbitration Clause 55 in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement. 

7.           On merits, it was admitted that the complainants had booked Flat No.DVF-E-2/9-GF measuring 1550 sq. ft. (now increased to 1750 sq. ft.) and Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 28.02.2011. It was further stated that increase in the saleable area was intimated to the complainants vide letter dated 22.10.2014. It was further admitted that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the possession of the allotted unit, was to be handed over to the complainants within 24 months from the signing of the Agreement subject to force majeure conditions or due to reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainants were informed as regards the stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the construction activity at the project site from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012. It was further stated that an exit offer vide letter dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure C-5/R-11) was given to complainant No.1, which clearly portrait the exit plan, to carry on with the project and gave Opposite Parties another year to complete the project or to get the refund of the amount deposited till date with 9% interest. However, the complainants showed interest in the project. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have already completed construction of 771 independent floors on 257 plots and another 1020 built up units are near completion. It was further stated that out of 1791 built up units, occupation certificate(s) for 771 (257 plots) units has been received and as on date, possession of 140 units have been offered to the owners. It was further stated that proper water connection and electricity supply is in place and full housekeeping and maintenance services are being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL). It was further stated that possession was offered to the complainants vide letter dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure R-13) and still an amount of Rs.13,85,055/- is payable by the complainants. 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.

8.           The complainants, in support of their case, submitted affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, complainant No.1, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

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

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

11.         It is evident that the complainants were allotted Independent Floor No.DVF-E-2/9-GF in DLF Valley, Panchkula by the Opposite Parties and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed at Chandigarh on 28.02.2011 (Annexure C-2). The total price for the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.42,34,600/- and the complainants paid an amount of Rs.42,41,101.31 to the Opposite Parties as is evident from Receipt Details (at Page 82-A of the complaint file). As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. It is also admitted by the Opposite Parties that vide letter dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure    C-5/R-11), the Opposite Parties sought further time of 12 months, in addition to 24 months, to complete the construction work. The complainants were also given the option to seek refund alongwith 9% interest vide letter dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure C-5/R-11). However, the complainants agreed to a further period of 12 months in handing over of possession. Possession was offered only on 03.02.2016 vide letter (Annexure C-6) wherein demand for payment of balance amount of Rs.13,85,055.20Ps was also raised.

12.         Counsel for the Opposite Parties, during arguments, raised an objection 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 Arbitration Act 1996, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It may be stated here that the objection raised by the Opposite Party, in this regard, deserves rejection, in view of the judgment passed by this Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, wherein this issue was dealt, in detail, while referring various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the National Commission, New Delhi, and also Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ultimately it was held by this Commission that even 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 jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was also so said by the National Commission, recently, 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, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the argument raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, stands rejected.

13.         To defeat claim of the complainants, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that the complainants, being investors, had purchased the flat, in question, for earning profits, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, they would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of 1986 Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainants are property dealer(s), and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainants, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs.  Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of 1986 Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

14.         Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties was that the complainants filed this complaint to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainants were virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the present complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the flat, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, 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). By not completing the development and construction within a period of 24 months and extended period of 12 months, the Opposite Parties violated the terms and conditions and were deficient in rendering service. 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”

15.         From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have the remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the objection of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.         The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was delay in offering possession, on account of which, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them with interest or not. Clauses 11(a) and 11(b) of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 28.02.2011, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“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.”

 

No doubt, as per the afore-extracted clauses, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the floor, in question, within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement dated 28.02.2011 i.e. by 27.02.2013. However, as admitted by the Opposite Parties, they failed to offer possession within the aforesaid stipulated period of 24 months and vide letter dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure C-5/R-11) informed the complainants that they (Opposite Parties) would endeavor to complete the project subject to the delay of 12 months, which occurred due to stoppage of the work because of stay on construction activities. In this letter, the Opposite Parties also informed the complainants that Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP No.21786-88/2010 vide its order dated 12.12.2012 and the earlier order dated 19.04.2012 passed by it (Supreme Court) not to undertake further construction  at the project land stood vacated. The Opposite Parties also informed the complainants that in case, the complainants do not agree to delay of 12 months, they (Opposite Parties) would cancel the allotment and refund the amount deposited with 9% interest. Admittedly, there was no stay as on 12.12.2012 on construction activity. In fact, stay on construction activities was in force for a period of 8 months only. However, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, to the complainants even within the extended period of 12 months, which expired on 28.02.2014. The possession was offered vide letter dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure R-13), whereby the complainants were also asked to pay the balance outstanding amount of Rs.13,85,055.20Ps. The plea of the Opposite Parties that delay in granting permissions and approvals by the authorities further caused delay in completing the project is not tenable. If permissions for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, approval for which was also received in due course of time, the initial time taken 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, would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly that there was delay in offering possession. The total price of the unit was Rs.42,34,600/- and the complainants had made payments in the sum of Rs.42,41,101.31 to the Opposite Parties, which was undoubtedly their hard earned money. No plausible reason has been assigned by the Opposite Parties, as to why they failed to deliver possession of the unit, by the date stipulated in the Agreement and during the extended period of 12 months, i.e. by 28.02.2014. Delay could only be condoned, under the terms and conditions of the Agreement, if there exists any plausible reason. Under similar circumstances, 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, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, held as under:-

“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. Thus, in view of law laid down in aforesaid judgments, the complainants are entitled to refund of Rs.42,41,101.31.

17.         It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainants. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.42,41,101.31 was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the Opposite Parties were charging heavy rate of interest, for the period of delay in making payment of installments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest. It was also so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335. In view of above, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, to the tune of Rs.42,41,101.31  alongwith interest @15% simple interest from the respective dates of deposits till realization. (As per clause 39(a) of the Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Parties were charging interest @15% P.A., for a delay of 90 days and, thereafter, penal interest @18% P.A.).

18.         The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to any compensation or not. The complainants deposited their hard earned money, in the hope that they will have a house to live in. As admitted by the Opposite Parties, the construction at the site, which was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 19.04.2012, was vacated on 12.12.2012. The stay, thus, operated only for eight months but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession to the complainants even after the lapse of extended period of 12 months, on 28.02.2014. As stated above, possession has been offered by the Opposite Parties letter dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure R-13) i.e. after a period of around two years after the expiry of initial period of two years and one year extended period (in view of stay by Hon’ble Apex court on construction activity for 8 months). On account of non-delivery of possession of the unit, in question, by the Opposite Parties, to the complainants, complete in all respects, within the stipulated period or the extended period, (which was offered on 03.02.2016), the complainants have certainly suffered physical harassment and mental agony on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, for which, they need to be suitably compensated. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, (as claimed by the complainants in their complaint), if granted, would be just and adequate, to meet the ends of justice.

19.         In connected Consumer Complaint No.170 of 2016 titled ‘Col. Naresh Kumar Kohli & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’, the complainants were allotted Independent Floor No.D1/1-GF in the same project of the Opposite Parties, the total price whereof was Rs.76,31,579.76Ps. The complainants, in all, paid an amount of Rs.62,04,013.61Ps as per Customer Ledger (Annexure C-11). Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 07.01.2011 (Annexure C-2). However, possession of the unit, in question, which was to be offered within 24 months as per Clause 11(a) of the said Agreement or extended period of 12 months, in accordance with letter dated 05.06.2013, was not offered by the stipulated            date. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in           question, has not been offered till date. As such, in view of discussion already made in the preceding paras, the complainants, in this case, are entitled to refund of the deposited amount of Rs.62,04,013.61Ps alongwith interest from the respective dates of deposits and compensation to the tune of Rs.3 Lacs for physical harassment and mental agony on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties

20.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

21.          For the reasons, recorded above, both the complaints bearing No.168 of 2016 and 170 of 2016 are partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally, held liable and directed in the following manner:-

Complaint Case No.168 of 2016 titled as ‘Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.’.

 

(i)    To refund the amount of Rs.42,41,101.31 alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the complainants, 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 amount 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/-  (Rupees Two Lacs only) (as prayed), to the complainants, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @15% per annum from the date of default till actual payment;

(iii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.

Complaint Case No.170 of 2016 titled as ‘Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.’.

 

(i)    To refund the amount of Rs.62,04,013.61Ps alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the complainants, 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 amount 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.3,00,000/-  (Rupees Three Lacs only), to the complainants, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @15% per annum from the date of default till actual payment;

(iii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.

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

23.         Certified copy of this order be placed on record of Consumer Complaint No.170 of 2016.

24.        Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced

August 04,  2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad