Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/291/2016

Kevti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narender Yadav, Vineet Yadav,Adv.

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	291 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Kevti Devi W/o Sh. Sh. Rajpal Singh,
2. Neelam Singh W/o Sh. Karan Singh,

Both resident of 1/A24, Naveen Sadan, Near Raju Band Abu Nala, New Mohan Puri, Meerut – 25001 (in fact 250001), U.P.

                                         .........Complainants

                              Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	289 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	23.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Deepak Narang son of Sh. Nanak Chand Narang R/o House No.501, GH-69, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

                                         .........Complainant.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.101-102, DLF City Centre IT Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2^nd Address:

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Technology Park, Plot No.2, Tower-D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh, 160101.

2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-3, NH-8, Gurgaon (Haryana), 122002.

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

Argued by:

 

Sh.  Vikas Sharma, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	301 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Ravinder Paul Anand S/o Late Sh. Multani Ram Anand, H.No.3206, DLF Executive Homes, DLF City, Phase-IV, Gurgaon.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	310 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Dr. Rajni Kaushik W/o Dr. Shayam Lal Kaushik, Associate Professor of Pathology, IGMC, Shimla – HP.

 

 

2^nd Address: House No.C-IV/19, New Brock Hurst, Shimla – 170009.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Director, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh.
2. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula, through its Managing Director/Director, SCO No.101-102, DLF City Centre, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh.
3. M/s DLF Homes India Limited through its Managing Director/Director, SCO No.101-102, DLF City Centre, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	323 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Col. Shiv Kumar Rai, House No.104, E-14, GHS-79 (Sandeep Vihar), Sector 20, Panchkula (Hry.) PIN-134117.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Managing Director.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	324 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Jaspal Dhingra, House No.444, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi - 110087.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Managing Director.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	325 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

 

Sanjiv Sharma, House No.D-99, Sector 36, Noida – 201301, Uttar Pradesh.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Managing Director.

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	326 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Kavita Thapa, H.No.4420, Darshan Vihar, Sector-68, Mohali, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Managing Director.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	327 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Subhash Chander, House No.501/C6, Pawan Hans Housing Complex, Santa Cruz West, Mumbai – 110054.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8C, Chandigarh – UT, Pin – 160009 through its Managing Director.

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	328 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Jitender Ahlawat S/o Sh. Om Prakash Ahlawat R/o National Brain Research Centre, Nainwal Mod, Near NSG Campus, NH-8, Manesar, Gurgaon – 122050.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	330 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Gurpershad Aggarwal,
2. Ruchi Aggarwal W/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal,

Both resident of H.No.573, Sector – 16, Panchkula.

 

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	331 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Arun Kumar s/o Dhukal Ram,
2. Mrs. Gargi W/o Arun Kumar,

Both resident of C-61, BEL Colony, Sector – 14, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	332 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Vijay Pal Punia S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh R/o Advocate Niwas, Sahulpur, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan – 331023.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	337 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Badri Parshad Gupta S/o Budh Ram Gupta, H.No.5482, (Ground Floor), Modern Housing Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.
2. Anil Gupta S/o Badri Parshad Gupta, H.No.5482, (Ground Floor), Modern Housing Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

 

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower DLF City, Phase-III, NH-8, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Managing Director/Director/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.101-102, DLF City Centre, IT Park, Kishan Garh, Chandigarh, PIN 160101 through its Managing Director/Director/ Regional Manager/Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	341 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Ravi Datt Aggarwal, S/o Late Sh. Ram Saroop Aggarwal R/o Flat No.24, GH-38, Sector 20, Panchkula.
2. Sudesh Aggarwal W/o Ravi Datt Aggarwal, R/o Flat No.24, GH-38, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	342 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Ajay Kumar Singhal S/o Late Sh. Pritam Lal Aggarwal, R/o Flat No.401, GH-02, Agro Kuttir, Sector 20, Panchkula.
2. Jeewan Asha Singhal, W/o Ajay Singhal R/o Flat No.401, GH-02, Agro Kuttir, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	370 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Virender Singh Saharan S/o Balwant Singh R/o H.No.601, Sector 2, Panchkula.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	371 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Neetu W/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o H.No.1950, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhary, Haryana.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	372 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Shamsher Singh S/o Dalip Singh, Flat No.224, HEWO Apartment, Sector 56, Gurgaon.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	373 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Surender Singh Sangwan S/o Dharam Singh, H.No.169, M.C. Colony, Rohtak Road Bhiwani, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	391 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Parminder Kumar S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh,

 

Correspondence Address:- House No.597-A, Sector 6, HUDA, Panipat.

 

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

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

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Pradeep Panwar, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	392 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Hans Raj Sharma,
2. Adarsh Sharma W/o Satish Kumar Sharma,

Both resident of Golden Textiles, 155 DIC, Industrial Area, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

 

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	393 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Gautam Kashyap S/o Ashok Kashyap, F-4, Green Park (Main), New Delhi.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	394 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Sarup,
2. Sneh Lata W/o Krishan Lal,

Both R/o B-XI/735, Gali No.6A, Bharat Nagar, K.C. Road, Barnala, Punjab.

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002. Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	395 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

Nikhil Goel s/o Sh. Tirloki Nath Goel r/o House No.3135, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant.

 

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate  for  the complainant.

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

 

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	400 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	26.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

1. Anoop Chaturvedi son of Late Sh. S. K. Chaturvedi,
2. Jyoti Chaturvedi wife of Sh. Anoop Chaturvedi,

Both residents of #1574, ESCIC Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having office at SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having Regd. Office, DLF Gateway Tower, Twelveth (12) Floor, DLF City, Phase III, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana, India through its Vice Chairman.

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	407 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	27.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	13.10.2016

 

 

 

1. Jasbir Sheokand S/o Sh. Bhal Singh,
2. Samriti Sheokand w/o Jasbir Singh,

Both residents of Flat No.401, Salvia Block, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula.

…..Complainants.

 

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector – 8 C, Chandigarh – UT. Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate  for  the complainants.

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

               

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid 27 consumer complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 291/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016.

2.           At the time of arguments, on 19.09.2016, 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 27 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.291 of 2016, titled as ‘Kevti Devi and another Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and another.’

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 1550 sq. ft. The complainants booked a flat in DLF Valley Project on 31.03.2010 and paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide receipt No.RVL/CRB/01053/0310. The Opposite Parties entered into an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement (Annexure C-3) on 26.04.2011 whereby independent floor No.B-1/17 (Second Floor) with a parking number P-2F was allotted to the complainants. The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.40,02,099.75 for the saleable area of 1550 Sq. Feet.  In Para 7 of the complaint, it was stated that complainants had paid Rs.39,11,449.62 to the Opposite Parties, besides payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 17.06.2016. Thus, the total amount deposited was Rs.41,11,449.62.

5.         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.

6.          It was further stated that 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 club house with modern facilities and several such facilities/amenities as were provided in brochure/ website. It was further stated that the construction quality is very poor and most of the promised services/ amenities/facilities were lacking. It was further stated that the complainants have suffered immense losses despite having paid for the unit.

7.         Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to hand over the physical and legal possession of unit, in question, complete in all respects after obtaining all due permissions and certificates including the Completion Certificate inter-alia from the concerned authorities; pay interest calculated @12% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of delay in handing over of the possession till the date, possession is handed over to the complainants; pay compensation @Rs.10 per square feet of the saleable area for delaying the possession along with interest @24% per annum from 26.04.2011; 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 of Opposite Parties; pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for delay in handing over the possession; Rs.70,000/- as litigation expenses; and grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8.         The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement submitted that the occupation certificate from the competent authority has already been received by them on 02.05.2016  (Annexure- R/1) and action to offer possession of the floor, in question, is in process. It was further stated that the complainants had full knowledge about the executed terms of the Agreement dated 26.04.2011. 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 to the complainants. 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 05.06.2013 (Annexure R-3) to the complainants for refunding   the  amount  alongwith  9%  interest  but  the complainants opted to continue with the project and consented for extension.

9.         In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and the 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.

10.       On merits, the factum of booking of property no.DVF B-1/17 (Second Floor) measuring 1550 sq. ft. by the complainants and execution of builder buyer agreement on 26.04.2011 between the parties, has been admitted by the Opposite Parties. It was also admitted that the price of the unit, in question, was Rs.40,79,599.75 plus other taxes and charges as applicable. It was further stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and full housekeeping and maintenance services were being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle. It was further stated that the construction of all the facilities/amenities was on verge of completion and all the facilities promised by the Opposite Parties in its brochure would be completed and provided to the buyers in coming days. It was further stated that the construction was almost complete and possession is being delivered. 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 there is a delay interest of Rs.10,370.28 levied against the account of the complainants for delay of 151 days besides the outstanding balance of Rs.5,25,195.66Ps due as on  30.06.2016. 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(s) of 1320 units had 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.

11.       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.

12.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their separate affidavits, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

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

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

15.       It is evident, on record, that the complainants were   allotted   independent   floor  No.DVF-B-1/17  (Second Floor) in DLF Valley and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure C-3) was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh, as per which, the total price was Rs.40,02,099.75 i.e. Basic Sale Price Rs.26,66,774.96 + Preferential Location Chares (PLC) Rs.7,20,749.98 + External Development Charges of Rs.3,34,427.93 + Rs.2,80,146.88 as interest on above components. In addition to the total price and other charges mentioned in the Application/Agreement, Annexure-III to the Agreement, charges as mentioned in Clause 1.4 of the Agreement i.e. Membership Fee Rs.30,000/- for five years, Rs.6,000/- per annum as Annual Club Charges and Rs.20,000/- as refundable security deposit and charges/taxes as per Clause 1.11, 1.12, 1.14 and 1.15 etc., were payable. Further, as per Clause 11(a), the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. There was stay on construction activities by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, on account of which, the Opposite Parties sought extension of time for one year vide letter dated 05.06.2013 (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 26.04.2011 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), the       averment of the Opposite Parties that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained the Opposite Parties from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010, is not relevant. The complainants have alleged that construction quality was very poor and most of the promised services/amenities/facilities were lacking. No cogent evidence by way of report of an Engineer/Architect in support of allegation(s) has been brought on record. In the absence of cogent evidence, the bald assertion made by the complainants cannot be given any cognizance. This point was also not pressed during arguments.

16.       An objection was raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complainants filed this complaint leveling baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive, to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the 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”

 

17.       From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the 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. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainants are trying to rewrite/modify the terms of the agreement. Surprisingly, Opposite Parties have prayed to allow them 31% cost escalation of construction as well as 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. There is a clear and specific stipulation in the Agreement that price of the unit is escalation free. The Opposite Parties failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period and one year extended period. They are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and their prayer for allowing them escalation cost is not only unfair but it also amounts to seeking amendment of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. In this view of the matter, the Opposite Parties are clearly deficient in rendering service and their objection, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainants is maintainable.

18.       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 own 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, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainants, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs.  Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

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

 

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

19.         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 26.04.2011 (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 complainants were entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also 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 05.06.2013 (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.39,11,449.63 as per Customer Ledger (Annexure C-2) and the balance payable is shown as Rs.5,25,195.66. The Opposite Parties have admitted receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.39,11,449.63. As per the Opposite Parties, an amount of Rs.5,25,195.66 is still due against the complainants as on 30.06.2016 because of which, the possession is withheld. This plea of theirs stands corroborated by the customer ledger placed on record. The complainants have averred that they also deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 17.06.2016 but no receipt qua payment of this amount has been placed on record. 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 25.04.2014, but not later than that. Permission for occupation of the unit, in question, has been accorded to the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 02.05.2016 (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. 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 25.04.2014, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The argument of the Opposite Parties that delay in handing over possession of independent floor was attributable due to delay in receiving statutory approvals from the competent authorities, the same being absolutely beyond their control, is not tenable.  The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 26.04.2011 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Parties ought to have obtained all the approvals. If permissions/approvals for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, approval for which was also received in due course of time, the initial time taken (almost 2 years) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of more than two years beyond initial stipulated period of two years and one year extended period in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainants.

20.         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 26.04.2011 i.e. by 25.04.2014. 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.

21.       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.”

22.       In some of the complaint cases, where the complainant(s) have obtained loan from the financial institutions, for paying part price of the unit(s), it has been argued by the Opposite Parties that the complainants obtained housing loan at a lesser rate and were claiming interest @15% and 24%. It may be stated here that this Commission in cases of this project has been granting interest @12% only for the period of delay beyond 3 years and in no manner, the compensation by way of grant of 12% interest (for around 2½ years) would be more than the rate of interest on the loan amount, (may be on lower rate of interest) as the interest to the financial institution(s) is payable from the date of drawl, for longer duration(s). The Opposite Parties, in case of delay in remittance of instalments, charge 15%/18% rate of interest. The plea taken is, therefore, not tenable. 

23.       Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case, referred to above, and position stated above, grant of compensation in the form of simple interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, would meet the ends of justice.

24.         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 25.04.2014 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 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. There is delay in remitting installment(s).  It has specifically been asserted by the Opposite Parties that there was delayed interest of Rs.10,370.28 levied against the account of the complainants for delay of 151 days besides outstanding balance of Rs.3,25,191.66. Under 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/-.

25.       Details of date of execution of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement(s); whether complainant(s) are original allottees; due date for possession after one year extended period; date of receiving Occupation Certificate and DLI; are given hereunder, in respect of connected 16 complaint cases:-

TABLE - A

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Due date for possession after one year extended period	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)	DLI
	310/2016	28.12.2010	Yes	27.12.2013	19.07.2016	2619.08
	325/2016	25.11.2010	Yes	24.11.2013	Not received	30021.64
	327/2016	11.02.2011	Yes	10.02.2014	Not received	585.31
	328/2016	31.12.2010	Yes	30.12.2013	16.06.2016	21886.84
	330/2016	14.12.2010	Yes	13.12.2013	Not received	330.84
	331/2016	24.02.2011	Second Allottee (16.04.2013)	23.02.2014	16.06.2016	201240.18
	341/2016	09.02.2011	Second Allottee (02.05.2013)	08.02.2014	19.07.2016	-
	342/2016	09.02.2011	Yes	08.02.2014	Not received	653.47
	372/2016	01.02.2011	Yes	31.01.2014	19.07.2016	-
	373/2016	21.01.2011	Yes	20.01.2014	19.07.2016	-
	392/2016	14.01.2011	Yes	13.01.2014	Not received	-
	393/2016	22.02.2011	Yes	21.02.2014	Not received	-
	394/2016	22.02.2011	Yes	21.02.2014	Not received	41413.00
	395/2016	30.12.2010	Second Allottee (13.01.2013)	29.12.2013	19.07.2016	-
	400/2016	01.02.2011	Yes	31.01.2014	09.06.2016	62129.00
	407/2016	15.12.2010	Yes	14.12.2013	19.07.2016	132652.88

 

26.       In above complaints, occupation certificate(s) of the unit(s), in question, have been obtained by the Opposite Parties in respect of complaints mentioned at Sr. Nos.1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 on the respective dates mentioned under Column 6 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 the above tabulated consumer complaints mentioned at Sr. No.1 to 16. Therefore, in view of 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 on payment of amount due, and 12% interest for the delayed period beyond three years till possession is handed over, compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.35,000/- in each of the above complaints.

27.       In the following three connected complaints bearing Nos.323 of 2016, 332 of 2016 and 391 of 2016 indicated in Table B below, the complainant(s) are second/third allottees and before transferring the units, in their favour, they had furnished an undertaking to the effect that they shall not claim any compensation. Para 3 & 4 of the undertaking furnished by the complainant in Consumer Complaint No.323 of 2016 are extracted hereunder:-

              “3. We undertake that we have seen, verified, examined all the documents and agreements, receipts, correspondence, forms concerning the Independent Floor and has also seen the physical position of the Independent Floor in “DLF Valley Panchkula” Project and after being satisfied from the same executing this undertaking.

              4.  We undertake that we are not entitled for any compensation/claims on account of delay possession of the said Independent Floor as agreed upon with the First Allottee and all the relevant paras in this regard in the Application form/Independent Floor buyer’s agreement become null and void.”

 

TABLE - B

1	2	3	4	5	6
Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Due date for possession after one year extended period	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)
1	323/2016	07.04.2011	Third  Allottee (17.06.2014) Undertaking given	06.04.2014	09.06.2016
2	332/2016	15.03.2011	Second Allottee (08.04.2014) Undertaking given	14.03.2014	16.06.2016
3	391/2016	17.01.2012	Second Allottee (06.10.2014) Undertaking given	16.01.2015	Not received

 

28.       A similar question arose in consumer complaint No.54 of 2016 titled ‘Hari Ram Dangra & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’ and seven connected complaints, decided by this Commission vide order 25.07.2016. This Commission in Paras 44 to 46 in the said order, held as under:-

“44. In case of Complaint No.71 of 2016 titled Lt. Col. Naveen Suri Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that unit, in question, was transferred in the name of the complainant from the previous allottee vide letter dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure C-3). The Opposite Parties alongwith their written statement have annexed an undertaking furnished by the complainant, duly notarized, Paras 3 and 4 of which, read as under:-

“3.          I undertakes that I have seen verified examined all the documents and agreements, receipts, correspondence, forms concerning the Independent Floor and has also seen the physical position of the Independent Floor in DLF Valley Panchkula Village Bhagwanpur, Near Surajpur, Tehsil – Kalka project and after being satisfied from the same executing this undertaking.

 

 

 

4.           I undertake that I am not entitled for any compensation/claims on account of delay possession of the said Independent Floro as agreed upon with the First Allottee and all the relevant paras in this regard in the Application form/Independent Floor buyer’s Agreement become null and void.

 

 

45.         The Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that in the aforesaid undertaking, the complainant undertook that he was not entitled to compensation/claim on account of delay possession of the said independent floor and he was bound by the same.

 

46.         Perusal of contents of the aforesaid undertaking, however, reveal as if the unit was ready for possession, whereas, the fact is otherwise and the possession was offered only on 14.01.2016 (Annexure C-6). The complainant in that case apparently furnished the undertaking under the impression that possession of the unit, in question, would be handed over to him immediately. Such an undertaking by no stretch of imagination would mean that complainant was not entitled to compensation for delay after the date of undertaking. Therefore, from the date of undertaking/date when unit was transferred in his name i.e. 27.03.2015, till possession is handed over to the complainant, he (complainant) is entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% per annum on the deposited amount.”

 

29.       Therefore, in the above complaints bearing Nos.323/2016 and 332/2016 also, the complainant(s) are entitled to possession of the unit(s), in question, complete in all respects on payment of amount due, and interest @12% per annum on the deposited amount(s) for the delayed period from the dates of furnishing undertaking/date on which the rights were transferred in their favour. The complainant(s) shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.35,000/- in each case. In complaint case No.391 of 2016, two years and one year extended period expired on 16.01.2015 i.e. after the undertaking, as such, the complainants in this case are entitled to same relief and interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. 16.01.2015.

30.       In the following five consumer complaints bearing No.301/2016, 324/2016, 326/2016, 370/2016 and 371/2016, (indicated in Table-C below), possession of the unit(s) has been offered by the Opposite Parties:-

 

TABLE - C

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Date on which possession offered	Demand raised while offering possession.	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)
	301/2016	21.12.2010	Original allottee	08.06.2016	Rs.10,10,471.16 + Rs.90,806.00 + Rs.2,56,228.00 (stamp duty & registration Charges)	08.06.2016
	324/2016	23.12.2010	Original allottee	03.02.2016	Rs.9,61,678.01 + Rs.92,662.00	10.07.2015
	326/2016	13.12.2010	2nd Allottee (14.05.2013)	03.02.2016	Rs.13,90,638.26 + Rs.92,662.00	10.07.2015
	370/2016	03.02.2012	Original allottee	08.06.2016	Rs.13,00,723.21 + Rs.91,963.00 + Rs.4,36,028.00 (stamp duty & registration Charges)	08.06.2016
	371/2016	04.05.2012	2nd Allottee (04.05.2012)	08.06.2016	Rs.11,03,195.13 + Rs.91,963.00 + Rs.2,47,228.00 (stamp duty & registration Charges)	12.04.2016

 

31.       In Consumer Complaint No.326 of 2016, Counsel for the parties stated that possession stands delivered to the complainant(s).

32.       In these five cases, the Opposite Parties while offering possession of the unit(s), in question, also raised demand as tabulated above.

33.       In Consumer Complaints No.324 of 2016 and 326 of 2016, Counsel for the complainant(s), in regard to demand in the sum of Rs.5,02,500/- each on account of change/increase in area etc., submitted that the demand raised on this account was illegal, null and void. It may be stated here that at Page 2 of the possession letter, it has been mentioned as under:-

“1. PROPERTY DETAILS

Kindly Note that post compounding, the final area of the plot is 1751.00 sq. ft. (162.59 sq. mt.) which is an increase/decrease in area of 201.00 sq. ft./ (18.66 sq. mt.) and the differential cost payable by you/refundable to you as the case may be. Any increase/decrease in area is necessitated to improve upon the original tentative plan of the super area and is covered under Clause no.10 of the Independent Floor Agreement. Any increase/decrease in PLC (Preferential Location Charges) is charged as per Clause 1.10 of the agreement.” 

 

34.       The Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that there was specific provision to this effect in the Agreement and the complainant(s) was backing out from the executed contract. It may be stated here that as per Agreement executed between the parties saleable area was 1550 sq. ft., which as per letter offering possession stood revised to 1751 sq. ft., meaning thereby that there was increase of 201 sq. ft. in the saleable area. Clause 10 of the Agreement deals with ‘Alteration/ modification’ in the area. The said Clause reads thus:-

“In case of any alteration/modification including as mentioned in the clause above, resulting in increase/decrease of more than 15% in the Saleable Area of the Said Independent Floor or material/substantial change in the sole opinion of and as determined by the Company, in the specification of the material to be used in the Said Independent Floor, any time prior to the grant of occupation certificate, the Company shall intimate in writing to the Allottee the proposed changes thereof and the resultant change, if any, in the Total Price of the Said Independent Floor to be paid by the Allottee. The Allottee agrees to deliver to the Company any objections to the changes within thirty (30) days from the date of notice of the changes. In case the Company does not receive any written objection from the Allottee within thirty (30) days of the dispatch of notice of changes then the Allottee shall be deemed to have given unconditional consent to all such alterations/modifications and for payments/refunds, if any to be paid/refunded in consequence thereof. If the Company receives the objections in writing within the stipulated time from the Allottee of the proposed changes then the Company may either decide not to go ahead with the proposed changes or may decide to cancel this Agreement without further notice and refund the entire money received form the Allottee with interest @10% per annum within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of objections from the Allottee by the Company. In case the Company decides to cancel the Agreement, the Company shall be released and discharged from all its obligations and liabilities under this Agreement and the Allottee shall have no right, interest or claim of any nature whatsoever on the Said Independent Floor and the Company shall be free to resale or deal with the Said Independent Floor and the Parking Space(s) in any manner whatsoever. The Company shall have no other liability except to refund the amount as stated above.”

 

35.       The increase in the area is less than 15% of the saleable area and, therefore, in terms of aforesaid clause, consent of the complainant(s) was not required. The Opposite Parties could, therefore, increase the area in accordance with the aforesaid provision in the Agreement. Had the complainant(s) brought in evidence any expert report of an Architect/Engineer that there was no increase, the position would have been different. Since the complainant(s) has neither adduced any evidence regarding non-existence of increased area nor raised any objection within 30 days, and since he is seeking possession, he was bound to pay for the increased area. The demand raised by the Opposite Parties on this account is, therefore, held to be perfectly justified.

36.       During arguments, the Counsel for the parties were in agreement that stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable at the time of execution of the sale deed of the unit, in question, after possession is handed over; charges in the sum of Rs.18,000/- on account of advocate fee etc. would not be payable by the complainant(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 that same shall be payable by the complainants only as and when the same is paid by the Opposite Parties to the Government. 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., within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The complainants are held entitled to interest @12% for the delayed period, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- in each of the above five complaints.  

37.       However, in two complaints bearing Nos.289 of 2016 and 337 of 2016 (as indicated in Table ‘D’ below) the complainants have sought refund of the deposited amounts. Details of amount(s); date of Agreement; due date for offering possession; whether possession offered; delay in offering possession and whether the complainant(s) are first allottee; are given hereunder:-

 

TABLE - D

Sr. No.	Description/ Details	289/2016 (Deepak Narang Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr)	337/2016 (Badri Parshad Gupta & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr)
1.	Amount deposited. (Rs.)	35,93,207.07	44,10,136.00
2.	Date of Agreement.	25.08.2011	11.04.2011
3.	Due date for offering possession.	24.08.2014	10.04.2014
4.	Whether possession offered	No	No
5.	Delay in offer of possession	2 Years	2½ Years
6.	Whether first allottee	Yes	Yes

 

 

38.         As is evident from record of these two complaints, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreements were executed on 25.08.2011 and 11.04.2011. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Company was to endeavor to complete construction of the independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the agreement unless there was delay or failure due to reasons mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of the allottee to pay in time the total price and other charges, taxes and cesses, deposits, securities etc. and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Clause 12 of the Agreement stipulated that company upon obtaining certificate of occupation and use from the Governmental Authority, shall offer in writing, possession of the independent floor to the allottee in terms of the Agreement to be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of such notice and the Company shall give possession provided the allottee is not in default of any terms and conditions of the Agreement and has complied with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as may be prescribed by the Company in this regard. In the instant case, 24 months period plus the extended period of 12 months from the date of execution of the agreements expired on 24.08.2014 and 10.04.2014 respectively. The possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered till date, meaning thereby that there is already delay of around 2 years and 2½ years respectively in offering possession. No reason or circumstances, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties for such delay beyond initial period of two years and one year extended period, have been explained. There is, thus, inordinate delay in offering possession of the allotted unit(s). This Commission in the case of Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, in the light of law settled by Hon’ble National Commission in such cases, held that the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them with the Opposite Parties. Relevant Paras of the aforesaid judgment read thus:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the  complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the  complainants to accept the same. It was so held by the National Commission in Emaar MGF   Land   Limited   and   another   Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). Recently also, under similar circumstances, in the case of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the  complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. It is therefore held that the  complainants could not be held guilty, of filing the present complaint, seeking refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest and compensation, as possession of the unit was not offered to them by the stipulated date.

It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. Therefore, in these two complaints, the complainant(s) are entitled to refund of the amounts alongwith interest @15% per annum from the dates of respective deposits, besides compensation for physical harassment and mental agony in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.35,000/- each.

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

40.      For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 291/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

291/2016, 310/2016, 325/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016.

 

 

 

            The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within four months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) due against them.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 26.04.2014 in respect of Complaint No.291/2016 and from the respective dates as given in Column  No.5 in Table – A, respectively till 31.10.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount 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, to the complainant(s)  w.e.f. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

 

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

323/2016, 332/2016 and 391/2016.

 

 

 

            The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within four months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) due against them.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from the respective dates of undertaking(s) till 31.10.2016, in case of complaint Nos.323/2016 & 332/2016 and w.e.f. 16.01.2015 till 31.10.2016 in respect of complaint bearing No.391/2016, 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. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

 

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

301/2016, 324/2016, 326/2016, 370/2016 and 371/2016

 

 

            In these complaints, (except Complaint No.324 of 2016), payment(s) against demands raised vide offer of possession letters, 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). [In Complaint No.324 of 2016, it was stated by the Counsel for the parties that possession stands delivered.]
(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 21.12.2013, 23.12.2013, 13.12.2013, 03.02.2015 and 04.05.2015 respectively till 31.10.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s)  w.e.f. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), 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.

 

            In all these five complaints, 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 complainants. The demand of contingent vat, shall be payable as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.

            Since the demand(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.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

289/2016 and 337/2016

 

 

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

 (i)  To refund the amounts of Rs.35,93,207.07 and Rs.44,10,136.00 respectively, alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the respective complainant(s), from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest @18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of default till actual payment;

 (ii) To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant(s), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

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

42.       Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016.

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

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

Pronounced.

13.10.2016

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Ad