STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH
 

1. NARENDER KUMAR YADAV S/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar
2. NEHA GUPTA W/o Sh. Narender Kumar Yadav

Both residents of Flat No.104, GH-5, Sector 24, Panchkula, Haryana.

……Complainants.

Versus

1. DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD., SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8C, 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.

1. DINESH KUMAR S/o Sh. Chandu Ram
2. SEEMA MATHUR W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar

Both residents of H.No.364, Housing Board, Sector 19, Panchkula.

……Complainants.

Versus

1. DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD., SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8C, 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.

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

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

                 SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh.  Arjun Sheoran,  Advocate  for  the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two complaints bearing No.224/2015 and 225/2015, referred to above. Since the facts involved in the two complaints are almost identical, the facts are being culled from complaint case No.224 of 2015 titled as ‘Sh. Narender Kumar Yadav and another Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt.Ltd. & Another’.

2.            The facts, in brief, 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 and published various web and news advertisements as well as visual advertisements so as to attract the public at large to purchase flats and pent-houses in the said project. It is stated that the previous allottee Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta booked a flat in the DLF Valley project on 28.03.2010 and paid Rs.4,00,000/- on 28.03.2010. He further paid Rs.2,44,022.49, Rs.3,22,246.12 and Rs.9,236/- on 25.5.2010, 24.07.2010 and 01.10.2010 respectively. It was further stated that an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement was entered into between Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta and the Opposite Parties on 15.12.2010 (Annexure C-3), whereby he was allotted independent floor/unit No.E-4/25 SF (Second Floor) with a parking No.P-2F. It was further stated that the total price payable for the said unit was Rs.32,18,999.69Ps, which included Rs.2,02,270.96 & Rs.2,96,669.92 as PLC and EDC respectively. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure C-4) informed that on the occasion of Baisakhi, transfer charges were waived from 01.04.2013 to 30.04.2013.  

3.         The Opposite Parties transferred the said unit in the name of the complainants vide letter dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure C-5) and thus, the present complainants were substituted in place of the previous allottee, with the consent of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement dated 15.12.2010, the Opposite Parties were to complete construction of the unit in question and deliver its possession within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was further stated that in case of any delay beyond 24 months, as per Clause 15, the Opposite Parties were to pay compensation @10/- per sq. feet per month of the saleable area for such delay. It was further stated that the complainants applied for loan of Rs.8,70,000/- from HDFC Bank and entered into a Home Loam Agreement dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure C-8).

4.         It was further stated that the saleable area of the unit, in question, was increased from 135 Sq. Metres (1450 Sq. Ft.) to 146.14 Sq. Meters (1573 Sq. Ft.), on account of which, Opposite Parties vide letter dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure C-9) raised demand of Rs.2,46,000/- including service tax, totaling to Rs.2,55,311.72Ps, as informed to the complainants. It was further stated that the complainant till now have paid an amount of Rs.29,75,046/- to the Opposite Parties as per copy of customer ledger (Annexure C-2).

5.         It was further stated that despite promising several times and despite written commitments made in the Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver possession as promised till date. It was further stated that on visiting the project site on various occasions, the complainants came to know that the unit, in question, and other amenities/facilities as promised were not even ready for possession and much work was still to be done before giving possession. It was further stated that in addition to above, the Opposite Parties also failed to provide facilities i.e. community hall, covered stilt parking, Yoga Centre, proper swimming pool, library, card/carom room, pool/billiards room and a clubhouse with modern facilities. The complainants have given details of the facilities, which were sought to be provided and their current status in Para 21 of the complaint.  It was further stated that due to delay in handing over possession of the unit, in question, the complainants suffered immense financial losses as they are paying the rent of about Rs.12,000/- plus maintenance charges of Rs.3,000/-, totaling Rs.15,000/-. It was further stated that the rent for the year 2014-15 was Rs.11,000/- plus maintenance charges of Rs.3,000/-, as per rent agreement (Annexure C-12). The complainants have also annexed rent agreement dated 01.08.2015 for the year 2015-16 as Annexure C-13.

6.         Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to handover the physical and legal possession of Unit No.E-4/25 complete in all respects; pay compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet of the saleable area for delaying possession alongwith interest @24% per annum from 15.12.2010; provide all basic and promised facilities/communities to the complainant; give proper and legal possession of the unit, after obtaining all due permission and certificates including Completion Certificate from the concerned authorities; pay Rs.20 lacs, as compensation on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance to the complainants; pay Rs.13,000/- & Rs.2,000/- on account of house rent & maintenance from 14.5.2013 till the date of handing over possession of the unit, in question and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation.

7.         The Opposite Parties, put in appearance, on 21.10.2015. They filed their joint written reply on 04.12.2015. In their written version, the Opposite Parties, took up certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complainants were not consumers and rather speculators, who purchased the property, in question, in order to obtain profits out of real estate speculation; and that this Commission was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the existence of Arbitration clause No.35 of the Application Form; that since the complainants sought enforcement of the agreement in respect of the unit, in question, which can only be decided by a Civil Court.

8.         On merits, it was admitted that the original allotment in the name of Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta was transferred in the name of the complainants under the Baisakhi Scheme launched by the Opposite Parties.  It was stated  that   the   complainants   opted   for   the installment  payment plan, as per which, the payments were to be paid by the complainants as per the payment schedule forming part of the application for allotment. It was also admitted that Independent Floor Buyers Agreement was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties on 15.12.2010. It was admitted that possession was to be offered, as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was admitted that against the total price of the unit, which was Rs.32,18,999.69, the complainants had deposited Rs.29,75,046/- with the Opposite Parties till 07.11.2014. It was further stated that there was delay in construction of the said independent floor because of stay on construction of the project at DLF Valley Panchkula, granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 till 12.12.2012, vide order dated 19.4.2012 passed in SLP No.21786-88 of 2010. It was further stated that the said stay order stood vacated on 12.12.2012 and accordingly, the construction again resumed. It was further stated that due to the aforesaid force majeure condition, the Opposite Parties could not be held liable for delay in construction and handing over possession for the reasons beyond their control.

9.         It was further stated that the construction of the said project is in full swing and possession of the unit, in question, shall be given to the complainants in the coming time, subject to payment of Rs.10/- per Sq. Ft. per month as a measure of compensation for delay in possession and the same shall be paid at the time of offer of possession. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

10.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their joint affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

11.       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. 

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

13.       It is evident that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, from the original allottee, which was then transferred in their name vide letter dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure C-5). It is also admitted that Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 15.12.2010 (Annexure C-3). The total price payable for the said independent floor, as depicted in Agreement, was Rs.32,18,999.67 and as admitted by the Opposite Parties, the complainants made payment in the sum of Rs.29,75,046/-. The complainants have made all the payments, which became due as per construction linked plan. The demand raised by the OPs vide letter dated 22.10.2014 (C-9) in the sum of Rs.2,55,311.72Ps. on account of revision in saleable area was postponed until further notice vide letter dated 07.11.2014 (Page -324). It is also evident on record that the complainants applied for loan of Rs.8,70,000/- from HDFC Bank and entered into a Home Loam Agreement dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure C-8) Lien of HDFC Ltd. was also noted by the OPs, on the property, in question. 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.

14.       The first objection of the Opposite Parties that   the complainants are not the consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act is not on sound footing. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the complainants booked/purchased the floor, in question, for carrying on some commercial activity or they booked/purchased more than one floor in their same project. The mere fact that it was a residential floor is sufficient to prove that the same was to be used by the complainants, for their residence. The complainants have even obtained loan from HDFC for making part payment towards price of the flat. They are presently residing in a rented accommodation and paying monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- as is evident from Rent Agreement (Annexure C-13). As such, this objection being devoid of merit, is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

15.       The next objection, raised by the Opposite Parties, is regarding the existence of arbitration clause No.35 in Application Form. With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Act is made, 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.”

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of an arbitration clause, in the application form/Agreement, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385  and  C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. Not only this, recently also, a similar view was taken by the National Commission, in a case titled as DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013. Vide that judgment many Revision-Petitions were decided. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2013, passed by the National Commission, Rosedale Developers Private Limited/ Opposite Party challenged that order in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with various judgments, including Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata and another (2009) 10 SCC 103 (the one reliance on which has been placed by the opposite parties in present case also)  observed that the same (judgments) have no bearing on the issue, as to whether in the face of an Arbitration Clause, Jurisdiction  can be exercised by a Consumer Fora or not. It was further observed that the observation made in that judgment that Section 8 of the 1996 Act, is mandatory, cannot lead to an inference that the Consumer Fora is bound to refer to the Arbitral Tribunal. In this view of the matter, this objection of the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.          The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, since the complainants  sought enforcement of the Agreement, in respect of the unit, in question, i.e. immoveable property, only a suit, in the Civil Court was maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, and they were allotted the same for consideration, possession whereof was to be delivered in a time bound manner, referred to above. It was not that the complainants purchased the unit, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis”.  Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

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

17.           The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was any deficiency attributable to the Opposite Parties in handing over possession of the flat, in question, to the complainants. Clauses 11(a) and 11(b) of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure C-3), being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“11(a) Schedule for possession of the said Independent Floor:-

The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of twenty four (24) months from the date of execution of the Agreement unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force majeure conditions and due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of Allottee to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

11(b) Delay due to reasons beyond the control of the company:-

If the possession of the said Independent Floor is delayed due to Force Majeure conditions, then the company shall be entitled to extension of time for delivery of possession of the said Independent Floor. The company during the continuance of the Force Majeure reserves the right to alter or vary the terms and conditions of the agreement or if the circumstances so warrant, the company may also suspend the development for such period as is considered expedient and the allottee shall have no right to raise any claim compensation of any nature whatsoever for or with regard to such suspension………..”

No doubt, as per the afore-extracted clauses, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the floor, in question, within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement dated 15.12.2010 i.e. by 14.12.2012. However, as admitted by the Opposite Parties themselves, they failed to offer possession within the aforesaid stipulated period of 24 months and vide advertisement (Annexure C-10) informed the consumers that they (Opposite Parties) would be planning to commence handing over of possession in 2014. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that due to force majeure conditions, delay in completing the project partly occurred due to stoppage of work because of stay on construction activities by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In support of their contention, the Opposite Parties placed on record copies of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The operative part of order dated 19.04.2012, interalia, reads as under:-

“….With a view to avoid further complications in the mater, we direct the State of Haryana and its functionaries and also the impleaded respondents not to undertake further constructions on the land which was acquired vide Notification dated 26.9.2007 read with the declaration dated 25.9.2008. This would mean that all the ongoing construction activities shall be stopped forthwith.”

Undisputedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP No.21786-88/2010 vide its order dated 12.12.2012 and the earlier order dated 19.04.2012 passed by it (Supreme Court) not to undertake further construction at the project land, stood vacated. Since there was stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, the period of delay to this extent falls within the ambit of force majeure conditions. Since the Opposite Parties were prevented to perform their obligations, they are entitled to 8 months in addition to two years period,  stipulated in the Agreement for handing over possession. In other words, the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay any penalty for eight months, there being stay on the construction activities. During arguments, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties admitted the fact that the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver possession of the floor, in question, complete in all respects, to the complainants, till date, what to talk of compensation, as envisaged under Clause 15 of the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 15.12.2010. Nothing has been placed, on record, by way of documentary evidence, to this effect. The complainants had made payments in the sum of Rs.29,75,046/- to the Opposite Parties, which was undoubtedly their hard earned money. They even raised loan for making part payment on which they are paying interest. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that possession, complete in all respects, could be delivered to the complainants by 30.06.2016. The complainants are, therefore, entitled to possession and compensation for delayed possession w.e.f. 14.08.2013 i.e. (14.12.2012 plus 8 months) @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area per month in terms of Clause 15 of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure C-3). By not handing over possession by the aforesaid date and by not paying the compensation, the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service. The complainants are entitled to compensation @Rs.10 per sq. ft. of the saleable area per month w.e.f. 14.08.2013 till 31.12.2015 alongwith interest @12% per annum. Since the penalty/compensation is payable on monthly basis, the interest @12% per annum shall be payable from the dates when penalty/compensation for each month became due. For example, penalty for the period 14.08.2013 to 13.09.2013 became due on 14.09.2013, the interest shall be payable w.e.f. 14.09.2013 and so on for each month. The complainants are also entitled to compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet w.e.f. 1.1.2016 onwards, each month, till possession, complete in all respects, is delivered.

18.         The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to any compensation or not, on account of deficiency in service, adoption of unfair trade practice and for mental agony and physical harassment suffered.. The complainants deposited their hard earned money, in the hope that they will have a house to live in. The Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession to them (complainants) within the stipulated period and even on expiry of force majeure conditions. Admittedly, possession has not been offered by the Opposite Parties till date. On account of non-delivery of possession of the floor, in question, by the Opposite Parties, to the complainants, complete in all respects, within the stipulated period, or even till date, the Opposite Parties have been deficient in rendering service. The complainants have certainly suffered physical harassment and mental agony at their hands, for which, they need to be suitably compensated. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, if granted,  would be just and adequate, to meet the ends of justice.

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

20.        For the reasons, recorded above, both the complaints bearing No.224 of 2015 and 225 of 2015 are partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally, held liable and directed in the following manner:-

Complaint Case No.224 of 2015

(i)    To hand over legal physical possession of Independent Floor No.E-4/25 (Second Floor), with all promised facilities including completion certificate, complete in all respects, to the complainants, within six months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay delay charges/compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area per month to the complainants due from 14.08.2013 to 31.12.2015 in terms of Clause 15 of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure C-3), alongwith interest @12% per annum, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the same shall carry penal interest @15% per annum till realization.

(iii) Delay charges/compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area per month due from 01.01.2016 onwards, shall be paid by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12 % P.A., from the date of default, till actual payment is made.

(iv)  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only), to the complainants on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, mental agony and physical harassment, caused to them (complainants), at their hands, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

(v)   To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, to the complainants within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of default till realization.

(vi) In the event of failure to comply with direction at (i) above within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, as additional penalty, over and above compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area in terms of Clause 15 of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, till handing over of possession.

Complaint Case No.225 of 2015

(In this case, Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 27.01.2011 (Annexure C-4) and by adding eight months period due to force majeure conditions, to 2 years time period stipulated in the same (Agreement), the Opposite Parties were to hand over possession on 27.09.2013)

(i)   To hand over legal physical possession of Independent Floor No.E/4/25-GF, with all promised facilities including completion certificate, complete in all respects, to the complainants, within six months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay delay charges/compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area per month to the complainants due from 27.09.2013 to 31.12.2015 in terms of Clause 15 of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure C-4), alongwith interest @12% per annum, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the same shall carry penal interest @15% per annum till realization.

(iii) Delay charges/compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area per month due from 01.01.2016 onwards, shall be paid by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12 % P.A., from the date of default, till actual payment is made.

(iv)  To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only), to the complainants on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, mental agony and physical harassment, caused to them (complainants), at their hands, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

(v)   To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, to the complainants within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of default till realization.

(vi) In the event of failure to comply with direction at (i) above within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, as additional penalty, over and above compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the saleable area in terms of Clause 15 of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, till handing over of possession.

21. Certified copy of this order be placed in Consumer Complaint No.225 of 2015.

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

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

Pronounced

January 13, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad