Chandigarh
StateCommission
CC/274/2016
Col. B.N.L. Kaushal - Complainant(s)
Versus
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Narender Yadav & Vineet Yadav,Adv.
12 Sep 2016
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint | : | 274 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 20.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
- Col. B. N. L. Kaushal S/o Late Sh. B. D. Kaushal,
- Ravi Kaushal S/o Col. B. N. L. Kaushal,
Both resident of H.No.485, Sector – 2, Panchkula, Haryana.
.........Complainants.
Versus
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – U.T. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 275 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 20.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
- Sudha Rani W/o Madhu Sudan Syal,
- Ankit Syal S/o Madhu Sudan Syal,
Both residents of Lane No.1, Rose Avenue Saili Road, Pathankot, Punjab 145001.
…..Complainants.
Versus
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – U.T. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 278 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 21.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
- Kanwal Mohan S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal (Earlier #547, First Floor, Sector – 9, Panchkula), At Present: H.No.1582, Ground Floor, Sector 4, Panchkula.
- Mani Goel W/o Kanwal Mohan (Earlier #547, First Floor, Sector – 9, Panchkula), At Present: H.No.1582, Ground Floor, Sector 4, Panchkula.
…..Complainants.
Versus
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
..........Opposite Party.
Argued by:
Sh. Krishan M. Vohra, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Party.
Consumer Complaint | : | 282 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 22.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
- Nihal Singh S/o Sh. Ami Lal,
- Ashim Yadav S/o Nihal Singh,
Both Resident of H.No.1172, Sector 7, Panchkula, Harayana.
…..Complainants.
Versus
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – U.T. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 290 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Late Dr. Uttam Chand Gupta R/o H.No.1031, Sector -24B, Chandigarh.
…..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.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 292 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
Indu Dadhwal W/o Col. Rajesh Dadhwal, Attending HACC 40, College of Air Warefare, 2, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500003.
…..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.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 300 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 27.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
- Capt. Bhupinder Singh Oberoi S/o Late Sharnagat Singh Oberoi;
- Simaranjit Singh Oberoi S/o Capt. Bhupinder Singh Oberoi;
Both residents of H.No.90, Sector 27, Chandigarh.
…..Complainants.
Versus
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – U.T. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 302 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 27.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
Surinder Kumar Singla S/o Sh. Kapur Chand Singla, H.No.90A, Sector 9, Panchkula, Haryana.
…..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.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 303 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 27.06.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
Parmod Kumar Kathuria S/o Sundar Dass Kathuria, H.No.80D, Sector-1, Parwanoo, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
…..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.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, (India) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
Site Address: The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.
..........Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint | : | 401 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.07.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.09.2016 |
- Satya Prakash son of Sh. Suraj Bhan, Resident of #485, Sector 4, Panchkula.
- Sunita W/o Satya Prakash, Resident of #485, Sector 4, Panchkula.
…..Complainants.
Versus
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – U.T. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
- DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
..........Opposite Parties.
Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
Argued by:
Sh. Sandeep Malik, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for Opposite Parties.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
By this order, we propose to dispose of, following ten consumer complaints:-
1 | CC/274/2016 | Col. B. N. L. Kaushal & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
2 | CC/275/2016 | Sudha Rani & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
3 | CC/278/2016 | Kanwal Mohan & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited. |
4 | CC/282/2016 | Nihal Singh & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
5 | CC/290/2016 | Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
6 | CC/292/2016 | Indu Dadhwal | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
7 | CC/300/2016 | Capt. Bhupinder Singh Oberoi & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
8 | CC/302/2016 | Surinder Kumar Singla | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
9 | CC/303/2016 | Parmod Kumar Kathuria | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
10 | CC/401/2016 | Satya Prakash & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
2. At the time of arguments, on 31.08.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are virtually the same, and therefore, these ten complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
3. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.274 of 2016, titled as ‘Col. B. N. L. Kaushal & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr.’
4. In brief, the facts are that the Opposite Parties developed a Residential Group Housing Project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex. On the basis of advertisements, the complainants approached the Opposite Parties, who represented that the above project is one of the prestigious projects and promised to provide an independent floor with total area of 1450 sq. ft. The complainants booked a flat in DLF Valley Project on 21.03.2010 and paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide receipt RVL/CRB/00477/0310. The Opposite Parties entered into an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement (Annexure C-3) on 11.11.2010 whereby independent floor No.E-6/19 (First Floor) with a parking number P-1F was allotted to the complainants. The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.35,08,999.65 for the saleable area of 1450 Sq. Feet. The complainant till the filing of the present complaint had paid Rs.35,74,457.67 to the Opposite Parties.
4. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. Further as per Clause 15, if any delay happened beyond 24 months, then the Opposite Parties were to pay compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month of the saleable area for such delay. The complainants were assured that possession of the flat would be given within the stipulated period as the construction of the project was in full swing. Despite the commitments made in the Agreement, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the possession. The Opposite Parties also published an advertisement dated 13/01/2014 (Annexure C-4) wherein they again promised to hand over possession in 2014 but failed to do so.
- It was further stated that the other amenities/facilities, as promised, were not even ready for possession and the Opposite Parties were not in a position to give possession of floor, in question. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have not provided community hall, covered stilt parking, Yoga Centre, proper swimming pool, library, card/carrom room, pool/billiards room, and a clubhouse with modern facilities and several such facilities/amenities as was provided in brochure/website. It was further stated that the construction quality is very poor and most of the promised services/amenities/facilities are lacking. It was further stated that the complainants have suffered immense losses despite having paid for their own independent floor. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties informed the complainants vide email (Annexure C-6) that as on 17.05.2015, there was no DLI against the complainants.
6. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to hand over the physical and legal possession of unit, in question, complete in all respects; pay interest calculated @12% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of delay in handing of the possession till the date, the possession is handed over to the complainants; pay compensation @Rs.10 per square feet of the saleable area for delaying the possession along with interest @24% per annum from 11.11.2010; to give the proper and legal possession of independent floor in question, after obtaining all due permissions and certificates including the Completion Certificate inter-alia from the concerned authorities; award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance caused to the complainants due to the actions/omissions; pay Rs.70,000/- as litigation expenses; and grant any other relief which the Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement submitted that the occupation certificate has already been received by them from the competent authority on 05.04.2016 and action to offer possession of the floor, in question, is in process. It was further stated that the complainant had the full knowledge about the executed terms of the Agreement dated 11.11.2010. It was further stated that 31% cost escalation of the construction as well 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price of the allotted floor be allowed. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free as the complainants shall get the possession of the floor on the same price as committed by the Opposite Parties at the time of allotment of flat on 22.03.2010. It was further submitted that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction activity by the High Court during 2010 and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party litigation. It was further submitted that after dismissal of litigation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012, the Opposite Parties gave an exit option vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3) to the complainants for refunding the amount alongwith 9% interest but the
complainant opted to continue with the project and consented for extension.
8. In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and the complainants filed this complaint to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the complaint and pass orders on the relief claimed. The other preliminary objection raised is that the complainants are not consumers as the floor, in question, was booked by them not for personal use but for investment purposes and earning profits.
9. On merits, the factum of booking of property no.DVF E-6/19 (First Floor) measuring 1450 sq. ft. by the complainants and execution of builder buyer agreement on 11.11.2010 between the parties, has been admitted by the Opposite Parties. It was also admitted that the price of the unit, in question, was Rs.35,81.499.69 plus other taxes and charges as applicable. It was admitted that the office of the Opposite Parties is situated in Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.34,14,085.33 with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and full housekeeping and maintenance services are being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle. It was further stated that the project was almost complete and the basic amenities were there. It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, shall be handed over to the complainants very soon. It was further stated that possession was to be offered within 24 months (2 years) as stipulated in the Agreement unless there was delay due to a force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Agreement. It was further stated that as per Clause 43 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were not liable or responsible for not performing any of their obligation or undertakings as provided in the Agreement, if such performance is prevented due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was delayed on account of force majeure conditions, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that SLP No.21786-88/2010 was filed, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court stayed the construction activities at the project vide order dated 19.04.2012, which was vacated on 12.12.2012 only. It was further stated that after the vacation of stay, the construction work again resumed and, therefore, delay in handing over possession was due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that out of 1791 floors, occupation certificate of 1300 units has already been received and offer of possession to the allottees has already been started. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sought approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, which was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively. It was further stated that 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.
10. The complainants filed rejoinder, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
11. The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their separate affidavits, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
12. The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar, their Authorised Signatory, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
13. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
14. It is evident, on record, that the complainant was allotted independent floor No.DVF-E-6/19 (First Floor) in DLF Valley and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure C-2) was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh, as per which, the total price was Rs.35,08,999.69 i.e. Basic Sale Price Rs.27,64,424.97 + Preferential Location Chares (PLC) Rs.2,02,274.96 + External Development Charges of Rs.2,96,669.92 + Rs.2,45,629.84 as interest on above components. In addition to the total price and other charges mentioned in the Application/Agreement, Annexure-III to the Agreement, charges as mentioned in Clause 1.4 of the Agreement i.e. Membership Fee Rs.30,000/- for five years, Rs.6,000/- per annum as Annual Club Charges and Rs.20,000/- as refundable security deposit, were payable. Further, as per Clause 11(a), the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. There was stay on construction activities by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, on account of which, the Opposite Parties sought extension of time for one year vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3), to which, the complainants agreed. The option to get refund was not exercised by the complainants. Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 11.11.2010 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), the averment of the Opposite Parties that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained the Opposite Parties from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010, is not relevant.
15. An objection was raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complainants filed this complaint to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the complainants were virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit , in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to hand over possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Section 2 (1) (o) of 1986 Act, defines ‘service’ as under:-
“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”
16. From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, can be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of a consumer, as stated above. In the instant case, the complainants are seeking relief on account of violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement by the Opposite Parties and their deficiency in rendering service. 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.
17. To defeat claim of the complainants, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that since the complainants had purchased the flat, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, they would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show, that the complainants are property dealer(s), and 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. The complainants who are original allottees, are seeking possession, which means that they purchased the same for their residence. They have specifically stated that they booked the unit, in question, for their residential purpose. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 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 the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
18. 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 11.11.2010 (Annexure C-3), reads thus:-
“11(a) Schedule for possession of the said Independent Floor:-
The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of twenty four
(24) months from the date of execution of the Agreement unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force majeure conditions and due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of Allottee to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
11(b) Delay due to reasons beyond the control of the company:-
If the possession of the Said Independent Floor is delayed due to Force Majeure conditions, then the company shall be entitled to extension of time for delivery of possession of the said Independent Floor. The company during the continuance of the Force Majeure reserves the right to alter or vary the terms and conditions of the agreement or if the circumstances so warrant, the company may also suspend the development for such period as is considered expedient and the allottee shall have no right to raise any claim compensation of any nature whatsoever for or with regard to such suspension.”
As stated above, according to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). In the event of failure to deliver possession, as per Clause 15 of the Agreement, the complainant was entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also an admitted fact, that by making reference to above fact of granting stay, which resulted into delay in construction at the site, consent of the complainants was sought, vide letter dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure R-3), to complete construction within further 12 months. Option was also given to the complainants, to seek refund of the deposited amount, alongwith simple interest @9% P.A. The complainants exercised former option and continued to make payment(s) thereafter and by the time, the complaint was filed, they had paid an amount of Rs.34,14,085.33. Reading of written statement makes it very clear, that still no firm date to hand over possession of the unit has been given. Taking into account 12 months extension, the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession on or before 11.11.2013, but not later than that. Permission for occupation of the unit, in question, has been accorded to the Opposite Parties vide occupation letter dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure R-1) and it has also been stated that construction of the independent floor was almost complete but possession of the unit, in question, was neither offered by the date of filing the instant complaint nor till date, despite payment of almost 90% of the sale consideration by the complainants. Further as per email (Annexure C-6), there was no DLI against the account of the complainants as on 17.05.2016. Though complainants averred that construction of certain amenities was not complete but no cogent evidence to this effect has been brought on record. This point was also not pressed during arguments. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within maximum period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and within further extended period of 12 months i.e. latest by 11.11.2013, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The argument of the Opposite Parties that delay in handing over possession of independent floor was attributable due to delay in receiving statutory approvals from the competent authorities, the same being absolutely beyond their control, is not tenable. The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 11.11.2010 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Parties ought to have obtained all the approvals. If permissions/approvals for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, approval for which was also received in due course of time, the initial time taken (more than 2 years) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of around three years beyond initial stipulated period of two years and one year extended period in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainants.
19. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period of 24 months and extended period of 12 months on account of force majeure conditions. As stated above, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties have not delivered possession within 24 months as stipulated in Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and thereafter within extended period of 12 months, from execution of the Agreement on 11.11.2010 i.e. by 11.11.2013. No doubt, in the Buyer’s Agreement, some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating the complainants for delay, but it does not mean that the intention was that even in the event of inordinate delay, in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainants would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month, which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view, Clauses 11(a) and 15 were meant for computing compensation, in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession. If the argument of the Opposite Parties is to be accepted, it would lead to an absurd situation and would give an unfair advantage to the unscrupulous builder, who might utilize the consideration amount meant to finance the project, by the buyer for its other business venture, at nominal interest of 3 to 4 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. Recently in Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-
“8. If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.
9. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:
(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.
(3) No separate compensation would be payable to the complainants either towards the rent if any paid by them or for the mental agony and harassment which they have suffered on account of the failure of the opposite party to perform its contractual obligation.”
Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case, referred to above, grant of compensation in the form of simple interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, would meet the ends of justice.
20. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to them, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to them, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date in the Agreement or latest by 11.11.2013 i.e. within the extended period. The complainants purchased the unit, with the hope that they will have a house to live in. The possession of unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainants, till date, what to speak of delivery thereof. The complainants, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. The compensation in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs claimed by the complainants is on the higher side. The complainants have been adequately compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainants shall also get the benefit of escalation in price of the unit. In these circumstances, compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainants, due to the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, if granted, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainants, are, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.
21. Details of basic facts viz. (a) date of execution of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement(s); (b) whether possession of the unit, in question, has been handed over to the complainant(s) or not; (c) demand raised by the Opposite Parties while offering possession; (d) amount paid against demand raised; and (e) Date of receiving Occupation Certificate; are given hereunder, in respect of connected nine complaint cases:-
| Sr. No. | Description/Details |
| ||
| a) | Date of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement |
b) | Whether possession offered. | |
c) | Demand raised while offering possession. | |
| d) | Amount paid against demand raised. |
| e) | Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. |
| ||
| 1. | Complaint No.275 of 2016 |
a) | 12.01.2011 (Annexure C-3) | |
b) | No. | |
c) | No. | |
| d) | Nil |
| e) | 02.09.2015 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 2. | Complaint No.278 of 2016 |
| a) | 03.02.2011 (Annexure C-9) |
b) | No. | |
c) | No. | |
| d) | Nil |
| e) | 02.05.2016 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 3. | Complaint No.282 of 2016 |
a) | 30.12.2010 (Annexure C-3) | |
b) | No. | |
c) | No. | |
| d) | Nil |
| e) | 09.06.2016 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 4. | Complaint No.290 of 2016 |
a) | 24.12.2010 (Annexure C-2) | |
b) | No. | |
c) | No. | |
| d) | Nil |
| e) | 19.07.2016 (Annexure R-1) |
|
| |
| 5. | Complaint No.292 of 2016 |
a) | 07.01.2011 (Annexure C-3) | |
b) | Possession offered on 03.02.2016 (C-6) | |
c) | Rs.10,06,833.32 + Rs.92,610/- | |
| d) | Rs.6,52,406/- & Rs.92,610/-. |
| e) | 10.07.2015 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 6. | Complaint No.300 of 2016 |
| a) | 17.01.2011 (Annexure C-4) |
| b) | Possession offered on 03.02.2016 (C-6) |
| c) | Rs.12,00,343.61 + Rs.92,662/- |
| d) | Rs.9,32,215/- less stamp duty & registration charges and Rs.92,662/- (Annexure C-7) |
| e) | 10.07.2015 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 7. | Complaint No.302 of 2016 |
a) | 27.12.2010 (Annexure C-4) | |
b) | Possession offered on 08.06.2016 (C-6) | |
c) | Rs.11,83,892.30 + Rs.90,859/- + Rs.3,17,628/-. | |
| d) | No payment made. |
| e) | 13.01.2016 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 8. | Complaint No.303 of 2016 |
a) | 16.02.2011 (Annexure C-3) | |
b) | Possession offered on 14.01.2016 (C-6) | |
c) | Rs.12,45,183.49 | |
| d) | No payment made. |
| e) | 14.01.2016 (Annexure R-1) |
| ||
| 9. | Complaint No.401 of 2016 |
a) | 28.12.2010 (Annexure C-2) | |
b) | No. | |
c) | No. | |
| d) | Nil. |
| e) | 16.06.2016 (Annexure R-1) |
22. In all above complaints, occupation certificate(s) of the unit(s), in question, have been obtained by the Opposite Parties on the respective dates mentioned at (e) in the above table. However, possession of the unit(s) in question, has not been offered/delivered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant(s) in Consumer Complaints, at Sr. No.1 to 4 and 9 i.e.275, 278, 282, 290 and 401 all of 2016. Therefore, in view of the observations made in the preceding paras, the complainant(s), in these cases, are entitled to possession of the unit(s) in question, complete in all respects, plus other reliefs, to which the complainants in the instant consumer complaint No.274 of 2016 are held entitled to.
23. In rest of the consumer complaints bearing No.292, 300, 302 and 303 all of 2016 (at Sr. No.5 to 8 in the above table), possession of the unit(s) has been offered by the Opposite Parties.
Complaint No.292 of 2016:-
The Opposite Parties while offering possession, vide letter dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure C-6), also raised demand in the sum of Rs.10,06,833.32 + Rs.92,610.00. As is evident from letter dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure C-7) of the complainant, out of Rs.10,06,833.32, the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.6,52,406/- and Rs.92,610/- respectively. The payment was made under protest. Additionally, the Opposite Parties in Annexure C-6 had also indicated that Advocate Fee, Bank Charges, Computer D-writer Fee would be payable by the complainant. The complainant has made the entire payment including contingent VAT deposit except stamp duty, registration charges and advocate fee. During arguments, the parties were in agreement that stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable at the time of execution of the sale deed of the unit, in question, after possession is handed over; charges in the sum of Rs.18,000/- on account of advocate fee etc. would not be payable by the complainant(s), but incidental expenses, which may be incurred at the time of registration of sale deed, shall be borne by the complainant(s). In regard to contingent deposit of VAT also, it was agreed by the parties that same shall be payable as and when the same is paid by the Opposite Parties to the Government.
Complaint No.300 of 2016:-
Similarly, in this case also, the Opposite Parties while offering possession, vide letter dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure C-6), also raised demand in the sum of Rs.12,00,343.61 + Rs.92,662.00. As is evident from letter dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure C-7) of the complainants, out of Rs.12,00,343.16, the complainants have remitted a sum of Rs.9,32,215/- (less stamp duty & registration charges) and Rs.92,662/- respectively. The complainants have, thus, made the entire payment except stamp duty, registration charges. As already held above, the stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable by the complainants at the time of execution of the sale deed of the unit, in question, after possession is handed over to the complainants. However, as agreed to, Advocate Charges, if any, would not be payable by the complainants, whereas, the incidental expenses, which may be incurred at the time of registration of sale deed, shall be borne by the complainants. In this case, the Opposite Parties have raised demand of Rs.25,477/- on account of contingent vat, which they could not raise at this stage. As already stated above, this demand of contingent vat was agreed to be paid as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.
Complaints No.302 of 2016 and 303 of 2016:-
In these two complaints, possession of the unit(s) was offered by the Opposite Parties vide letters dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure C-6) and 14.01.2016 (Annexure C-6) respectively. While offering possession, the Opposite Parties raised demands of Rs.11,83,892.30 (including contingent deposit of VAT charges of Rs.25,157.00), Rs.90,859/- on account of IBMS/CAM charges and Rs.3,17,628/- towards stamp duty, registration charges etc. and Rs.12,45,183.49 (including contingent deposit of VAT charges of Rs.25,477.00, stamp duty, registration charges and IBMS) respectively. In these cases, the complainants have not paid anything against the demand raised. As already held above, in these cases also, the demand of contingent vat was agreed to be paid as and when the same becomes payable and is paid by the Opposite Parties to the Government. Similarly, the advocate fee, if any, charged in these cases, is not payable by the complainants. The incidental expenses, as already stated above, shall be borne by the complainants at the time of registration of sale deed. The stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable by the complainants at the time of execution of the sale deed of the unit, in question, after possession is handed over to the complainants. Thus, at this stage, the complainants are held liable to pay the demand raised minus contingent vat, stamp duty, registration charges and advocate charges etc.
24. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, in all the cases.
25. For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing No.274/2016, 275/2016, 278/2016, 282/2016, 290/2016, 292/2016, 300/2016, 302/2016, 303/2016 and 401/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
Consumer Complaints bearing No:
CC/274/2016 | Col. B. N. L. Kaushal & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
CC/275/2016 | Sudha Rani & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
CC/278/2016 | Kanwal Mohan & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited. |
CC/282/2016 | Nihal Singh & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
CC/290/2016 | Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
CC/401/2016 | Satya Prakash & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-
(i) | To hand over physical possession of the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) legally due against them. |
(ii) | Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s). |
(iii) | To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 11.11.2013, 12.01.2014, 03.02.2014, 30.12.2013, 24.12.2013 and 28.12.2013 respectively till 30.09.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization. |
(iv) | To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, due to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.10.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made. |
(v) | Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant(s), on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization. |
(vi) | Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant(s), as litigation costs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization. |
Consumer Complaints bearing No:
CC/292/2016 | Indu Dadhwal | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
CC/300/2016 | Capt. Bhupinder Singh Oberoi & Anr. | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
In these complaints, the entire amount towards demand raised vide letters dated 03.02.2016 (Annexures C-6), less stamp duty and registration charges, stood deposited by the complainant(s) as is evident from letters dated17.03.2016 (Annexure C-7) and letter (Annexure C-7) respectively.
The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, directed as under:-
(i) | To hand over physical possession of the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. |
(ii) | Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s). |
(iii) | To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 07.01.2014 and 17.01.2014 respectively till 30.09.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization. |
(iv) | To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, due to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.10.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made. |
(v) | Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant(s), on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization. |
(vi) | Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant(s), as litigation costs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization. |
Consumer Complaints bearing No:
CC/302/2016 | Surinder Kumar Singla | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
CC/303/2016 | Parmod Kumar Kathuria | Vs | DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. |
In these complaints, demands raised vide offer of possession letters dated 08.06.2016 and 14.01.2016 (Annexures C-6) respectively, have not been deposited by the complainants. The demands, so raised, except the stamp duty & registration charges, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges, shall be deposited by the complainant(s) with the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-
(i) | To hand over physical possession of the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date balance payment is made by the complainant(s). |
(ii) | Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s). |
(iii) | To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 27.12.2013 and 16.02.2014 respectively till 30.09.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization. |
(iv) | To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount(s), due to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.10.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made. |
(v) | Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only), to the complainant(s), on account of mental agony and physical harassment to him/them, 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. |
(vi) | Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant(s), as litigation costs, 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. |
26. In all these ten complaints, as agreed between the parties, the Advocate Charges in the sum of Rs.18,000/- shall not be charged by the Opposite Parties. The actual expenditure for registration of Sale Deed(s) shall, however, be borne by the complainants. The demand of contingent vat, shall be payable as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.
27. In cases, wherever, the payment towards contingent VAT deposit on the basis of demand raised by the Opposite Parties, has been paid by the complainant(s), the same shall be adjusted by the Opposite Parties at the time of payment of stamp duty and registration charges. If by that time, the contingent VAT deposit payment is not made by the Opposite Parties to the Government, the complainant(s) shall also be entitled to interest on the contingent VAT deposit till the same is adjusted.
28. Since the demand(s) raised have, by and large, been held to be justified, in cases wherever, there is delay in making payment towards demand raised beyond two months, period taken beyond two months shall be excluded for the purpose of payment of 12% interest compensation on delayed period.
29. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.275/2016, 278/2016, 282/2016, 290/2016, 292/2016, 300/2016, 302/2016, 303/2016 and 401/2016.
30. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
31. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
12.09.2016
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
(DEV RAJ)
MEMBER
(PADMA PANDEY)
MEMBER
Ad
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.