DLF Homes Panchkula V/S Himanshu Arora - Consumer Court Case

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/508/2016

Himanshu Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Yadav, Vineet Yadav, Adv.

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	508 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Himanshu Arora S/o Sh. Arvind Kumar Arora,
Arvind Kumar Arora S/o Radhey Lal Arora,

Both R/o H.No.24, First Floor, Sector – 10, Panchkula.

.........Complainants.

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	438 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Chandbir Singh S/o Sh. Maha Singh, R/o H. No. 731/B1, Ratpur Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	503 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Kavita Goswami W/o Sh. Sandeep Goswami,
Sandeep Goswami S/o Sh. Jagdish Goswami,

Both R/o H. No.122, Friends Colony, Ramnagar, Dharamshala 176215 (H.P.).

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	504 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Kavita W/o Amit Kumar Verma,
Amit Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Puran Nath Verma,

Both R/o #302, E – 12, GH – 79, Sector – 20, Panchkula.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	505 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Col. Amarjit Singh Chandhoke S/o Sh. R. S. Chandhoke,
Jasjot Kaur Chandhoke W/o Col. Amarjit Singh Chandhoke,

Both R/o H. No. K-902, Sector – 27, Panchkula.

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	506 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Anuj Arora S/o Sh. Arvind Kumar Arora,
Arvind Kumar Arora S/o Radhey Lala Arora,

Both R/o H. No.24, First Floor, Sector – 10, Panchkula.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	507 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Col. Virendra Mohan S/o Late Sh. Satnam Rai, R/o H. No. 342, Kautilya Appatment, DDA MIG flats, Sector – 14, Pocket – B, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	515 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Col. Baldev Singh Katoch, S/o Sh. Piar Singh Katoch, r/o #22B/D, Green Belt Park, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu currently residing at J.P. Associates Limited, Sector – 128, Noida (U.P.)

.........Complainant

Versus

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

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

Argued by:

Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Party.

Consumer Complaint	:	517 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Baldev Singh,
Gautam Sharma S/o Ramesh Kumar,

Both Permanent R/o H.No.73/22, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	518 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Sunil Sanga S/o Sh. Hari Dutt Sanga,
Anju Sanga W/o Sunil Sanga,

Both Residents of A-703, Kunal Crimson, Ambedkar Chowk, Aundh Road, Khadki, Pune-411020.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.

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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	519 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Tarun Bajaj S/o Late Sh. O. P. Bajaj, R/o H. No. 1251, New Light Society, Sector – 51, Chandigarh - 160047.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	520 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Yogesh Sharma S/o Late Mr. Surender Sharma,
Pallavi Sharma W/o Yogesh Sharma,

Both R/o Director YS Capital, 306, Buss & Udyog Bhawan, TJ Road, Sewri (W), Mumbai – 400015.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	521 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Kuldip Saini S/o Sh. Shyam Lal, R/o H. No.503, GH-79, Sector 20, Panchkula.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	522 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Kumar Prabhakar S/o Sh. Sidheshwar Prasad,
Sidheshwar Prasad S/o Late Sh. Pragya Narayan Singh,

Both R/o H. No.329, First Floor, Sector – 16, Panchkula.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	523 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Sumit Gupta S/o Sh. Vinod Gupta, R/o H. No. 76, Sector – 4, Panchkula.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	524 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Jyotsna Sharma W/o Sh. Kapil Sharma, R/o 5203 Spring Creek Lane, O’ Fallon, MO 63368 through Rakesh Chander Sharma (Special Power of Attorney) R/o H. No. 1043, Sector – 7 Panchkula.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
DLF Homes PanchkulaPvt. 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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	525 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Tarana Negi W/o Dr. R. K. Negi, R/o H. No. 1230, Sector - 11, Panchkula.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	526 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Parminderjit Singh Gill, Little Flowers High School, Una Road, Hoshiarpur (Punjab).

.........Complainant

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., (Through its Regional Director/Head), SCO 190-192, Sector-8/C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., (Through its Managing Director), Regd. Office-DLF Gateway Tower, 2^nd Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	531 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	31.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Rishi Godara son of Sh. Rajender Godara, resident of House No.104, Ward No.11, Des Raj Ki Dhani, Ellanabad, Distt. Sirsa.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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 complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	532 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	31.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Naveen Kumar Bhambu son of Amar Singh, resident of House No.104, Ward No.11, Des Raj Ki Dhani, Ellanabad, Distt. Sirsa.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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 complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	533 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	31.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Jaswant Singh son of Ram Singh, resident of House No.104, Ward No.11, Des Raj Ki Dhani, Ellanabad, Distt. Sirsa.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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 complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	534 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	31.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

N. R. Garg son of Mam Chand Garg resident of Flat No.11, GH-9, Sector-5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

.........Complainant

Versus

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.
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 complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	566 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Mahesh Tanwar S/o Major J. R. Tanwar, R/o House No.294, Amravati Enclave, P.O. Chandimandir, Panchkula.
Charan Singh Tanwar S/o Major J. R. Tanwar, R/o House No.294, Amravati Enclave, P.O. Chandimandir, Panchkula.

.........Complainants

Versus

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.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase – 3, NH 8, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/ Representative.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, District Panchkula, Haryana.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

Consumer Complaint	:	568 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Sh. Roshan Lal Goyal son of Sh. Gopi Chand Goyal, aged 65 years,
Mr. Puneet Goyal son of Sh. Roshan Lal Goyal, aged 34 years.

Now residing at Independent Floor No.897, Ground Floor, Back Side State Bank of India, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, Haryana.

.........Complainants

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory/ Representative.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector8-C, Chandigrh-160009, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/ Representative.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Roshan Lal Goyal, complainant No.1 in person and on behalf of complainant No.2.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji & Sh. Parveen Jain, 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 24 consumer complaints bearing Nos.438/2016, 503/2016, 504/2016, 505/2016, 506/2016, 507/2016, 508/2016, 515/2016, 517/2016, 518/2016, 519/2016, 520/2016, 521/2016, 522/2016, 523/2016, 524/2016, 525/2016, 526/2016, 531/2016, 532/2016, 533/2016, 534/2016, 566/2016 and 568/2016.

2. At the time of arguments, on 08.11.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, these 24 complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

3. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.508 of 2016, titled as ‘Himanshu Arora & 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. The complainants booked a flat of saleable area of 2255 sq. ft. in DLF Valley Project on 13.03.2010 and paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- vide receipt No.RVL/CRB/00239/0310. The Opposite Parties entered into an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement (Annexure C-4) on 07.01.2011 whereby independent floor No.A-1/49 (Ground Floor) with a parking number P-GF was allotted to the complainants. The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.58,90,059.76 for the saleable area of 2255 Sq. Feet. In Para 7 of the complaint, it was stated that complainants had paid Rs.53,66,838/- to the Opposite Parties. The complainants also applied for housing loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from HDFC and are paying Rs.28,708/- as monthly installment as per Statement of Account (Annexure C-3).

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-5) wherein they again promised to hand over possession in 2014 but failed to do so.

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 07.01.2011; 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; 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 complainants had full knowledge about the executed terms of the Agreement dated 07.01.2011. 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 on 15.03.2010. It was further stated that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction activity by the High Court and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party litigation involving acquisition proceedings of land of litigants therein, in the years 2010 and 2012. It was further 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 02.04.2013 (Annexure R/2) to the complainants for refunding the amount alongwith 9% interest but the complainants opted to continue with the project and consented for extension. It was further stated that approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans sought on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively.

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. An objection was also raised in the written statement that as per Clause 55 in the Agreement, all disputes arising out of the Agreement are to be settled amicably, failing which, they shall be referred to the Arbitration.

A separate application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the matter to the sole arbitration was also filed by the Opposite Parties. Similar applications were also filed by the Opposite Parties in connected consumer complaints bearing Nos.503/2016, 504/2016, 505/2016, 506/2016, 507/2016, 509/2016, 515/2016, 517/2016, 518/2016, 519/2016, 520/2016, 521/2016, 522/2015, 523/2016, 525/2016, 526/2016, 531/2016, 532/2016, 533/2016 534/2016 and 566/2016.

10. On merits, the factum of booking of property no.DVF A1/49 - GF measuring 2255 sq. ft. by the complainants and execution of builder buyer agreement on 07.01.2011 between the parties, has been admitted by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the price of the unit, in question, was Rs.60,02,809.76 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 the 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 the complainants are in default of payments of Rs.1,971.28 on account of delay of 237 days. 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 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 did not file any rejoinder in the instant case.

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 an Independent Floor No.DVF-A-1/49 (Ground Floor) in DLF Valley and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 07.01.2011 (Annexure C-4) was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh, as per which, the total price was Rs.58,90,059.76 i.e. Basic Sale Price Rs.49,28,302.47 + External Development Charges of Rs.5,49,453.21 + Rs.4,12,304.08 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 02.04.2013 (Annexure R/2), to which, the complainants agreed. The option to get refund was not exercised by the complainants.

16. It has been categorically stated by the Opposite Parties in Para 17-18 on merits in their written statement that they have hired the services of professionals of international and national level companies to complete the project and all the facilities, amenities are on the verge of completion. No cogent evidence by way of report of an Engineer/Architect in support of allegation(s) of the complainants in regard to poor quality of construction, has been brought on record. In the absence of cogent evidence, such a bald assertion cannot be given any cognizance. These points were also not pressed during arguments.

17. The Opposite Parties in preliminary submissions have prayed to allow them 31% cost escalation of construction as well as 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. There is a clear and specific stipulation in Clause 1.2 of the Agreement that price of the unit is escalation free. The Opposite Parties failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period and extended one year period. They are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and their prayer for allowing them escalation cost is not only unfair but it also amounts to seeking amendment of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The plea, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

18. Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 07.01.2011 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), the averment of the Opposite Parties that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained the Opposite Parties from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010, is not relevant.

19. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. This question has already been elaborately dealt with by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.339 of 2016 titled ‘Sandeep Goyal Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited’ decided on 07.10.2016. Paras 13 to 20 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“13. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

It is also desirable to reproduce unamended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, which reads thus:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”

14. Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.

15. In the year 2015, many amendments were effected in the provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act, reads as under:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.”

16. Now it is to be seen, whether, after amendment in Section 8 of the principal Act, any additional right has accrued to the service provider(s), to say that on account of existence of arbitration agreement, for settling the disputes through an Arbitrator, the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, and also of the National Commission, in large number of judgments, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides additional remedy, notwithstanding any other remedy available to a consumer. The said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act/Law.

17. We will have to see what difference has been made by the amendment, in the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act. After amendment, it reads that a Judicial Authority is supposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other Court, unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. The legislation was alive to the ratio of the judgments, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. Vide those judgments, it is specifically mandated that under Section 3 of 1986 Act, an additional remedy is available to the consumer(s), which is not in derogation to any other Act. As and when any argument was raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Commission in the judgments, referred to above, have made it very clear that in the face of Section 8 of 1996 Act and existence of arbitration agreement, it is still opened to the Consumer Foras to entertain the consumer complaints. None of the judgments ever conferred any jurisdiction upon the Consumer Foras to entertain such like complaints. Only the legal issues, as existed in the Statute Book, were explained vide different judgments. If we look into amended provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act, it explains that judicial Authority needs to refer dispute, in which arbitration agreement exist to settle the disputes notwithstanding any judgment/decree or order of any Court. That may be true where in a case, some order has been passed by any Court, making arbitration Agreement non-applicable to a dispute/parties. However, in the present case, the above said argument is not available. The jurisdiction of Consumer Foras to entertain consumer complaints, in the face of arbitration clause in the Agreement, is in-built in 1986 Act. It was not given to these Foras, by any judgment ever. The provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act interpreted vide judgments vis a vis Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act, were known to the legislature, when the amended Act 2015 was passed. If there was any intention on the part of the legislature, then it would have been very conveniently provided that notwithstanding any remedy available in 1986 Act, it would be binding upon the judicial Authority to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, in case of existence of arbitration agreement, however, it was not so said.

18. We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/traders. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- (in the present case Rs.4000/-). As per the mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party. In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of Arbitrator’s fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act.

19. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. In the present case, the complainant has spent his entire life earnings to purchase the unit, in the said project, launched by the opposite party, in the manner explained above. He is now running behind the opposite party to get his amount, legally due to be paid to him, as it failed to deliver possession of the unit, even till date. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

20. Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

In view of the above, the plea taken by the opposite party, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected.”

20. In view of the above, the objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected. Accordingly, all the miscellaneous application(s) under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 stand dismissed.

21. 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”

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Another objection taken by the Opposite Parties is that the complainants, by not opting for the exit policy, waived of their right to raise grievance. The option to get refund was not exercised by the complainants. This plea of the Opposite Parties that by not exercising exit option, during 2013, the complainants waived of their right to raise any grievance, is not well based. While seeking option vide letter dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure R-2), the complainants were informed of delay and extension of one year was sought. One year extended period expired on 06.01.2014 and still the possession has not been offered. Had the Opposite Parties handed over possession before 06.01.2014, position would have been different and in that situation, it would have been accepted that the complainants had waived of their right to raise grievance. The plea being devoid of merit is not tenable.

25. 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 07.01.2011 (Annexure C-4), 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 02.04.2013 (Annexure R/2), 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.53,66,838/- as averred in Para 7 of the complaint. 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 06.01.2014, but not later than that. Permission for occupation of the unit, in question, is still pending. Despite averments of the Opposite Parties that construction of the independent floor was almost complete, possession of the unit, in question, was neither offered by the date of filing the

instant complaint nor till date, though payment of around 90% of the sale consideration stood made 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 06.01.2014, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The argument of the Opposite Parties that delay in handing over possession of independent floor was attributable due to delay in receiving statutory approvals from the competent authorities, the same being absolutely beyond their control, is not tenable. The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 07.01.2011 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Parties ought to have obtained all the approvals. If permissions/approvals for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, 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.

26. 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 07.01.2011 i.e. by 06.01.2014. 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.

27. 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.”

28. 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.

29. 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 06.01.2014 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. 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/-.

30. 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 and date of receiving Occupation Certificate are given hereunder, in respect of following eight connected complaint cases:-

TABLE - A

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)
	515/2016	11.01.2011	Yes	10.01.2014	19.07.2016
	520/016	04.11.2011	Yes	03.11.2014	21.10.2016(*)
	521/2016	20.12.2010	Yes	19.12.2013	19.07.2016
	523/2016	11.02.2011	Yes	10.02.2014	09.09.2016
	524/2016	10.01.2011	Second Allottee (19.06.2013)	09.01.2014	20.10.2016 (*)
	525/2016	20.12.2010	Yes	19.12.2013	02.05.2016
	534/2016	27.01.2011	Yes	26.01.2014	20.10.2016(*)
	568/2016	06.01.2011	Yes	05.01.2014	19.07.2016

(*) During arguments, it was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the Occupation certificates have been received.

31. In complaints No.515/2016, 521/2016, 523/2016, 525/2016 and 568/2016, the occupation certificate(s) of the unit(s), in question, have been obtained by the Opposite Parties on the respective dates mentioned under Column 6 in the above table. In complaints No.520/2016, 524/2016 and 534/2016, it was stated in the written statement(s) that the same have been applied for but yet not been received whereas, at the time of arguments, it was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the occupation certificate(s) in respect of these three complaints have also been received on dates indicated in Table-A. In these eight complaints, possession of the unit(s) in question, has not been offered/delivered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant(s). 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, 12% interest on the deposited amount 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.

32. In the following twelve complaints bearing No.438/2016, 503/2016, 504/2016, 505/2016, 506/2016, 507/2016, 517/016, 518/2016, 519/2016, 522/2016, 526/2016 and 566/2016, (particulars of which are indicated in Table-B below), at the time of arguments, it was informed by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties and admitted by the Counsel for the complainant(s), that possession of the unit(s) has been offered by the Opposite Parties:-

TABLE - B

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Date on which possession offered.	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)	DLI
1.	438/2016	21.02.2011	Yes	26.10.2016	18.03.2016	56,106.74
2.	503/2016	12.11.2010	Yes	15.10.2016	08.01.2016	1,204.80
3.	504/2016	15.12.2010	Yes	20.10.2016	05.04.2016	1,971.28
4.	505/2016	14.12.2010	Yes	15.10.2016	05.04.2016	1,915.67*
5.	506/2016	05.01.2011	Yes	26.10.2016	02.05.2016	971.93**
6.	507/2016	10.01.2011	Yes	26.10.2016	19.07.2016	20,222.90
7.	517/2016	11.01.2011	Second Allottee (25.01.2012)	10.10.2016	05.04.2016	14,307.51
8.	518/2016	21.02.2011	Second Allottee 30.03.2012	29.10.2016	02.05.2016	20,103.75
9.	519/2016	14.01.2011	Yes	29.10.2016	09.06.2016	3,962.55
10.	522/2016	05.01.2011	Yes	10.10.2016	05.07.2016	7,507.75
11.	526/2016	13.12.2010	Second Allottee (05.06.2013)	26.10.206	19.07.2016	10,056.95
12	566/2016	01.08.2011	Second Allottee (12.07.2013)	10.10.2016	08.01.2016	1,17,776.62

(*)During arguments, the DLI was stated to be Rs.20,222/-.

(**)During arguments, the DLI was stated to be Rs.1971/- instead of Rs.971.93.

33. In the above twelve complaint cases, as indicated above, it was stated at bar that, during pendency of these complaints, offer of possession has been made during October, 2016, subject to furnishing of affidavits/ documents and making the balance payment. In the offer of possession, six months time has been given to complete the formalities and make the payment without delayed interest. Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on getting instructions from Sh. Shiv Kumar, Authorized Representative of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. stated that in case, any allottee is eager to get possession, he/she will complete formalities and deposit the amount before the period of six months and as and when amount is deposited and other necessary documents are submitted, within 15 days thereafter, possession will be handed over to him/her. She further states that the amount of contingent Vat deposit will not be insisted upon at this stage, subject to furnishing an affidavit by the allottee to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. In cases relating to this project, earlier the Opposite Parties, at the time of offering possession, were also raising demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges but now while offering possession, no demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges has been raised.

34. The Counsel for the parties were further 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 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). Thus, at this stage, the complainants are held liable to pay the demand raised minus contingent vat, advocate charges etc. Previously, while offering possession, the Opposite Parties were giving only 30 days time to deposit the amount towards demand raised in the letter offering possession but since now the Opposite Parties have, as a goodwill gesture, granted six months time to complete the formalities and deposit the amount towards demand raised, coupled with the fact that there would be no holding charges during this period, the ends of justice would be served if the complainants are granted compensation by way of grant of 12% interest for the delayed period up-to date of offer of possession plus 2 months. [For instance, in complaint No.438/2016, possession was offered on 26.10.2016. Normally, the Opposite Parties give 30 days to complete the documents and for making payment. Six months time, as against 30 days, has been given in complaint cases indicated in Table-B for making payment, as a goodwill gesture by the Opposite Parties. For the benefit/concession extended to the complainants, it would be unfair if we penalize the Opposite Parties by granting 12% interest for six months period concession given to the complainants. In our opinion, it would be fair and justified if the complainants are allowed compensation up-to 25.12.2016 (i.e. 30 days from the date of offer of possession + 30 days grace period).] 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 complaints, except consumer complaints bearing Nos.438 of 2016 and 566 of 2016 wherein the DLI is Rs.56,106.74 and Rs.1,17,776.62 respectively. In complaint cases No.438/2016 and 566/2016, the complainant(s) are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- each.

35. In three complaints bearing Nos.531 of 2016, 532 of 2016 and 533 of 2016 (as indicated in Table ‘C’ 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 – C

Sr. No.	Description/ Details	531/2016	532/2016	533/2016
1.	Amount deposited. (Rs.)	58,77,704.69	63,94,551.00	65,40,440.81
2.	Date of Agreement.	18.05.2011	11.05.2011	05.01.2012
3.	Due date for offering possession.	17.05.2014	10.05.2014	04.01.2015
4.	Whether possession offered	No	No	No
5.	Delay in offer of possession	2 ½ Years	2 ½ Years	1 Years 11 Months
6.	Whether first allottee	Yes	Yes	Yes

In the above complaints, the Opposite Parties, in the written statement(s) indicated DLI but during arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Parties stated at bar that there is no delay in above three complaints and the DLI(s) were wrongly mentioned.

36. In Consumer complaint No.533 of 2016, as per averment of the complainant in Para 6 of the complaint, he has deposited a sum of Rs.65,40,400.81P. No receipts in regard to various payments have been placed on record by the complainant and the averment made is on the basis of Customer Ledger/Account Statement (Annexure C-2). The Opposite Parties, in their written statement, have admitted payment of Rs.58,78,799/-. On co-relating various receipts, placed on record by the Opposite Parties, the payments made are in the sum of Rs.61,60,400.81. Thus, there remains no dispute with regard to payment of Rs.61,60,400.81 by the complainant. The only difference is in the sum of Rs.3,80,000/- [i.e. Rs.65,40,400.81 – Rs.61,60,400.81], which is the sum total of entries reflected in the Customer Ledger/Account Statement (Annexure C-2) against dates 15.07.2014 and 18.12.2014 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively. Subject to confirmation of these two entries for a total sum of Rs.3,80,000/-, the complainant shall be entitled to refund of entire amount of Rs.65,40,400.81.

37. As is evident from record of these three complaints, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreements were executed on 18.05.2011, 11.05.2011 and 05.01.2012. 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 these cases, 24 months period plus the extended period of 12 months from the date of execution of the agreements expired on 17.05.2014, 10.05.2014 and 04.01.2015 respectively. The possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered till date, meaning thereby that there is already delay of around 2½ years, 2 ½ years and 1 Year & 11 Months 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. Recently in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015 decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder while holding as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainant that considering the default on the part of the opposite party in performing its contractual obligation, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and, therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him alongwith reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

Therefore, in these three complaints, the complainant(s) are held 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.

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

39. For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.438/2016, 503/2016, 504/2016, 505/2016, 506/2016, 507/2016, 508/2016, 515/2016, 517/2016, 518/2016, 519/2016, 520/2016, 521/2016, 522/2016, 523/2016, 524/2016, 525/2016, 526/2016, 531/2016, 532/2016, 533/2016, 534/2016, 566/2016 and 568/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

508/2016, 515/2016, 520/2016, 521/2015, 523/2016, 524/2016, 525/2016, 534/2016 and 568/2016.

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 07.01.2014 in respect of Complaint No.508/2016 and from the respective dates as given in Column No.5 in Table – A in respect of eight complaints indicated therein, till 30.11.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.12.2016, 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(s) shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

438/2016, 503/2016, 504/2016, 505/2016, 506/2016, 507/2016, 519/2016, 518/2016, 519/2016, 522/2016, 526,2016 and 566/2016.

In these twelve cases, the Opposite Parties have offered possession during the pendency of the complaint but, as already stated above, copies of offer of possession letters were not placed on record. In case, any allottee is eager to get possession, he/she will complete formalities and deposit the amount before the period of six months, and pay the demand raised, except the demands raised towards, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges, and as and when, amount is deposited and other necessary documents are submitted, possession will be handed over to complainant(s).

The Opposite Parties, 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 a period of 30 days, from the date balance payment is made/documents are completed 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 the dates 21.02.2014, 12.11.2013, 15.12.2013, 14.12.2013, 05.01.2014, 10.01.2014, 11.01.2014, 21.02.2014, 14.01.2014, 05.01.2014, 13.12.2013 and 01.08.2014 respectively uptil two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 25.12.2016, 14.12.2016, 19.12.2016, 14.12.2016, 25.12.2016, 25.12.2016, 09.12.2016, 28.12.2016, 28.12.2016, 09.12.2016, 25.12.2016 and 09.12.2016, respectively or up-to the date on which possession is actually handed over, whichever is earlier, 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)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, (In CC/438 & CC/566/2016 - Rs.1,25,000/- each) 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 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 complainant(s). The amount of contingent vat, shall be payable by the complainant(s) as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.

As agreed, the amount of contingent Vat deposit will not be insisted upon at this stage, subject to furnishing an affidavit by the allottee(s) to make the payment as and when demanded by 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:

531/2016, 532/2016 and 533/2016

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.58,77,704.69, 63,94,551.00 (in CC No.531/2016 and 532/2016 respectively) and amount as discussed in Para 36 (in CC No.533/2016), 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;

39. 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).

40. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.438/2016, 503/2016, 504/2016, 505/2016, 506/2016, 507/2016, 515/2016, 517/2016, 518/2016, 519/2016, 520/2016, 521/2016, 522/2016, 523/2016, 524/2016, 525/2016, 526/2016, 531/2016, 532/2016, 533/2016, 534/2016, 566/2016 and 568/2016.

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

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

Pronounced.

05.12.2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/508/2016

Himanshu Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Yadav, Vineet Yadav, Adv.

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319