DLF Homes Panchkula V/S Yogesh - Consumer Court Case

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/737/2016

Yogesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Kaajla, Adv.

21 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	737 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	26.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Yogesh son of Sh.Daya Kishan, resident of House No.242, Friends Colony, Kharkari Road, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	773 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Surjeet Singh son of Ch.Balbir Chand.
Dr.Saroj Surjeet Singh wife of Surjeet Singh.

Both residents of House No.8/29, New Campus, CCS HAU Hisar-125004.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Authorised Signatory.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-III, 104-8, Gurgaon, Haryana.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Ravi Kumar Nayak, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	779 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Lt. Col. Amit Sharma son of Dr.S.D. Sharma
Mrs.Ruchika Sharma wife of Lt.Col.Amit Sharma.

Presently at 92, Base Hospital, C/o 56 APO.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory/Representative.
DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160009 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory/ Representative.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	830 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Saroj Tomar wife of Suresh Tomar R/o House No.113/31, Ashok Vihar, Gohana Road, Sonipat.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, having its Office at SCO 190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Sales Manager.
DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Directors.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	832 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Jagdeep Singh son of Late Sh.Balbir Singh, permanent resident of VPO Rajpura, District Jind, Haryana, at present resident of House No.660, Sector 6, Panchkula.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, having its office at SCO 190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Sales Manager.
DLF Pvt. Ltd., having Regd. Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana through its Directors.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	842 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	25.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Mrs. Tara Sharma wife of Mr.Atul Singla, aged about 35 years.

Correspondence Address:- House No.291, Sector 21A, Chandigarh.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory/Representative.
DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160009 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory/ Representative.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	869 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	30.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Lt. Col. Joginder Singh son of Sh.Hoshiar Singh aged 40 years.
Sushma wife of Lt. Col. Joginder Singh, aged 38 years, both residents of H.No.204, Defence Officers Enclave Dhaula Kuna Part-2 Vande Matram Marg, Delhi Cantt.-110010.

.........Complainants.

Versus

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway 8, Gurgaon – 122002.

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

Argued by:

Sh. D.S. Soundh, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	876 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Brig. Lokesh Diwan Minocha son of Late Shri Dharam Shil Minocha, R/o C/O Maj. Gen. (Retd.) MP Singh, House No.240-A, Sector 2, Panchkula-134112.
Mrs.Anju Minocha wife of Brig. Lokesh Diwan Minocha R/o C/O Maj. Gen. (Retd.) MP Singh, House No.240-A, Sector 2, Panchkula-134112.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Authorised Representative.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway 8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director

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

Argued by:

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	889 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Vandit Barak Son of Late Sh.Dilbag Singh, R/o H.No.160, Sector 4, Rohtak.

.........Complainant.

Versus

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

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

Argued by:

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Party alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	952 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Romil Lamba son of Sh.Mohinder Singh Lamba.
Monika wife of Sh.Romil Lamba.

Both residents of Sir Chhotu Ram Colony, Opp. PWD Workshop Bhiwani, Haryana, Presently residing at 1^st Floor, House No.229, Sector 25, Panchkula.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh UT Pin 160009, through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, HQ at SCO 71-75, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Shubhankar Baweja, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Complaint against opposite party no.3 dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2017.

Consumer Complaint	:	959 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Mahender Singh aged about 47 years, son of Late Shri Puran Chand, resident of VPO Lohari, Tehsil and District Panipat now resident of House No.121, M.S. Enclave, Dhakouli, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, U.T. PIN-160099, through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

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

Argued by:

Sh. Robin Sathi, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	971 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Malkit Singh son of Sh.Uttam Chand, R/o G1-304, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur.

.........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. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Party alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

Consumer Complaint	:	982 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2017

Tajinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Kulwant Singh, R/o Q.No.3/32, Gujarat Refinery Township, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, Vadodara-391320, Gujarat.

.........Complainant.

Versus

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

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

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant, alongwith complainant in person.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal).

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 13 consumer complaints bearing Nos.737, 773, 779, 830, 832, 842, 869, 876, 889, 952, 959, 971 & 982 all of 2016.

2. After hearing arguments on 30.03.2017, we were of the opinion that the facts and issues in law, involved in the above bunch of complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the aforesaid 13 complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

3. During arguments, Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, placed on record, a detailed chart, under her signatures, showing in each case detail of property purchased, its price, date of agreement, total price and amount received and further whether possession offered etc. which was taken on record. It was also stated by the Counsel that the facts given in the chart were correct, as per their record.

4. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.737 of 2016, titled as ‘Yogesh Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’.

5. In brief, the facts are that initially one Dr. Sabinderjit Singh Sagar booked an independent floor in the project of the Opposite Parties on 30.03.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. He was allotted an independent floor bearing no.DVF-D-7/6-GF (Ground Floor) measuring 1450 Sq. feet. The total specific area was approximately 117.70 Sq. Mtr. and saleable area was 134.71 Sq. Mtr. at the rate of Rs.23524.72 per Sq. Mtr. alongwith parking bearing No.P1F. The total sale price of the said unit was Rs.32,91,499.75 including charges like PLC, EDC/IDC etc. An Independent Floor Buyer Agreement was executed between the Opposite Parties and Dr. Sabinderjit Singh Sagar on 31.01.2011 (Annexure C-2). The said unit was transferred in the name of the complainant on 12.11.2013 on the same terms and conditions of the previous allottee vide endorsement on agreement (Annexure C-3). The complainant never delayed the installments and upto 16.10.2016, an amount of Rs.31,10,242.42 was deposited with the Opposite Parties as per account statement (Annexure C-4).

6. 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 plus one year extended period i.e. by 30.01.2014. It was further stated that since January, 2014 the Opposite Parties have been delaying the offer of physical possession on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that as per aforesaid account statement, an amount of Rs.5,49,495.54 has been shown as balance amount towards the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties for handing over the physical possession as he was ready to pay the entire balance amount.

7. It was further stated that the aforesaid demand of Rs.5,49,495.54 raised against the complainant was totally unjustified and the Opposite Parties could not charge more than the sale value fixed in the agreement i.e. Rs.3,68,233.21 and the complainant is liable to pay only Rs.1,81,257.33 and not Rs.3,68,233.21. It was further stated that complainant is not liable to pay any amount in the shape of charges/taxes which the Opposite Parties are liable to refund. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties even did not bother to give any reply to the legal notice dated 20.09.2016 sent by the complainant (Annexure C-4).

8. 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 hand over physical possession of the unit, in question, immediately without any further delay; execute conveyance dead and get the same registered with the office of Sub Registrar as per Haryana Govt. rates after handing over the physical possession of the floor; pay interest on the deposited amount w.e.f. 30.01.2014 till the date of actual handing over of physical possession of the flat; @12% per annum i.e. Rs.4,78,500/- from 01.10.2014 as per Clause 15 of the agreement; not to ask for excess amount beyond agreement i.e. Rs.3,68,233.21; pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.55,000/- for litigation expenses and grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement stated that the property, in question, was originally allotted to Sabinderjit Singh Sagar vide allotment letter dated 03.04.2010 and agreement between the original allottee and the Opposite Parties was got executed on 31.01.2011. It was further stated that the said property was transferred in the name of complainant vide letter dated 12.11.2013. It was further stated that the complainant filed the instant complaint in total disregard to the terms of Floor Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties, which amounted to default/breach of its terms and conditions. It was further stated that the complainant is backing out from the executed contract. It was further stated that occupation certificate was received on 19.07.2016 and offer of possession letter dated 26.10.2016 was sent to the complainant (Annexure R-1 colly). It was further stated that the complainant had full knowledge about the executed terms of Agreement. It was further stated that the complainant prayed for unfounded demands, which were not as per executed terms of the Agreement and, thus, the Opposite Parties pray to allow 31% cost escalation of the construction as well 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free as the complainant shall get the possession of the floor on the same price as committed by the Opposite Parties at the time of allotment of the floor through allotment letter dated 03.04.2010. It was further stated that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction, ordered 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. The Opposite Parties have further stated that after dismissal of the said litigation by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 21.05.2013 offered an exit option to the complainant by accepting refund of his entire amount paid till date with 9% interest but he refused to avail the said option and apart from opting to continue with the project, also consented to the extension of time.

10. As regards present status of the project, it was stated that occupation certificate(s) of 1669 units had already been received. It was reiterated that occupancy certificate of the floor, in dispute, had already been received on 19.07.2016 and offer of possession letter dated 26.10.2016 already sent to the complainant. It was also stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and housekeeping and maintenance services were being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle. Further, the value of the property as per Schedule of Payment (SOP) was Rs.33,63,999.75 plus service tax, as applicable. It was further stated that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.33,59,527.69 and there is an outstanding amount of Rs.20,369.99 towards DLI of 796 days.

11. 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; that the complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission; that this Commission cannot adjudicate upon the matter where the prima facie prayers are for modification of clauses of the Agreement; that the complainant is not a consumer as the floor, in question, was booked by him for investment purposes and earning profits and that when given the option to exit vide letter dated 21.05.2013, the complainant agreed to continue with allotment and delay and, as such, he (complainant) voluntarily waived of his right to raise any grievance. Another objection raised in the written statement is 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. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties could not be made liable for delay caused due to force majeure conditions, which was on account of stay by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012 and delay in grant of approvals in layout plans and service plans. In Sub Para (g) of Para 8 of preliminary objections, it was 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. Apart from above objections, the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and try the complaint has been challenged on the ground that since the property, in dispute, is situated in Panchkula, which comes within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District, only Courts at Panchkula and Punjab & Haryana High Court have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant complaint. However, it was admitted in Para 13 of the reply, on merits, that the office of the opposite parties is situated in Chandigarh and the agreement was executed between the parties at Chandigarh.

12. The Opposite Parties also moved miscellaneous applications under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the following consumer complaints, for referring the matter to the sole arbitration:-

Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Miscellaneous Application No.
	773/2016	619/2016
	779/2016	621/2016
	830/2016	186/2017
	832/2016	574/2016
	869/2016	204/2017
	876/2016	324/2017
	889/2016	206/2017
	952/2016	218/2017
	959/2016	316/2017
	971/2016	315/2017
	982/2016	213/2017

The aforesaid applications were disposed of by this Commission by holding that the applicability of the arbitration process would be seen at the time of final arguments in the main case.

13. On merits, reiterating the submissions, as stated above, it was admitted that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, possession of the allotted unit, was to be handed over to the complainant within 24 months from the signing of the Agreement subject to force majeure conditions or due to reasons beyond the control of Opposite Parties as mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Agreement. It was further stated that delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was delayed on account of force majeure conditions. 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 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 there was a DLI of Rs.20,369.99 pending against the complainant. It was again reiterated that after receiving occupancy certificate for the floor, in question, on 19.07.2016, offer of possession letter dated 26.10.2016 was sent to the complainant. 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.

14. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

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

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

17. It is evident that after allotment of the unit, in question, to one Dr. Sabinderjit Singh Sagar on 03.04.2010, an Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement between him and the Opposite Parties was executed at Chandigarh on 31.01.2011. The total price of the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.32,91,499.75, besides other charges, securities, deposits and taxes etc. as specified in the Application/Agreement. Thereafter, said unit was purchased by the complainant, which was transferred in his name vide letter dated 12.11.2013. The complainant, in all , actually paid a sum of 33,59,527.69 as mentioned

in the Chart showing details of the property, in question, placed on record, under the signatures of the Counsel for the Opposite Party(ies), at the time of arguments on 30.03.2017. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. It is alleged in the written statement, that vide letter dated 21.05.2013, they (Opposite Parties) sought further time of 12 months, in addition to 24 months, to complete the construction work. It was further stated that vide that letter, option was also given to the complainant to seek refund alongwith 9% interest. However, the complainant agreed to a further period of 12 months in handing over of possession. In the instant case, no such document to show that any such offer was ever given to the allottee in the year 2013 is on record. It is, however, on record, that there was stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, which in turn, delayed the completion of the project. The Opposite Parties have claimed that this being a force majeure condition, they are entitled to benefit of delay of one year. The unit, in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 12.11.2013. The possession of the unit, in question, has been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant on 26.10.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure R-1 colly) and the instant complaint was filed on 26.10.2016 itself.

18. 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. Since the Opposite Parties failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period and extended one year period, they (Opposite Parties) are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and their prayer for allowing them escalation cost 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.

19. Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, in the instant case, was executed between the parties on 31.01.2011 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 them from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010 (Annexures R-6 and R-7), is not relevant.

20. 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 case titled ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126. Paras 25 to 35 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“25. 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.

26. 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.”

27. 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.”

28. 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.

29. 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.”

30. 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.

31. Now, 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.

32. 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. As in the present case, the complainant has spent his life savings to get a unit, for his residential purpose. His hopes were shattered. 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.

33. 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. As stated above, in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire life earnings to purchase the plot, in the said project, launched by the opposite party. However, his hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of the sale consideration, he failed to get possession of the plot, in question, in a developed project. 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.

34. 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.”

35. 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.”

In view of the above, the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

21. Another objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that as per Clause 55 of the Agreement, the Courts at Panchkula alone and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It was stated that since the property, in question, is situated in District Panchkula and a part of cause of action arose at Panchkula. However, it was admitted in Para 13 of the reply, on merits, that the office of the opposite parties is situated in Chandigarh and the agreement was executed between the parties at Chandigarh. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him. Clearly, application for allotment of Unit (Page 71 of written statement) was made by the complainant at Chandigarh address viz. Shop No.101-102, Ist Floor, DLF City Centre Mall, Rajiv Gandhi, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh. Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties on 31.01.2011 at Chandigarh. Since, as per documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.

22. In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to him, to file the complaint. The submission of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

23. The next objection raised by Counsel for Opposite Parties was that the complainant has made 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 complainant was virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the present complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the flat, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of Opposite Parties, they were to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of twenty four months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). 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”

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

25. To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that since the complainant 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, he 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 complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held 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 complainant, 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 complainant, thus, falls 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.

26. An objection has been raised by the Opposite Parties that the complainant, when given the option to seek refund with 9% simple interest, agreed to continue with allotment and also agreed to delay and, as such, he waived of his rights to raise any grievance. This plea of the Opposite Parties is not well based. It is stated that vide letter dated 21.05.2013, the complainant was informed of delay and extension of one year was sought. One year extended period expired on 30.01.2014 whereas the possession was offered on 26.10.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure R-1 colly.). Had the Opposite Parties handed over possession before the stipulated period of two years in the Agreement plus one year extended period i.e. by 30.01.2014, position would have been different and in that situation, it would have been accepted that the complainant had waived of his right to raise grievance. The plea being devoid of merit is not tenable.

27. 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 31.01.2011 read thus:-

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

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

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

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

As stated above, according to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). In the event of failure to deliver possession, as per Clause 15 of the Agreement, the complainant was entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also admitted that above fact of granting stay resulted into delay in construction at the site.

28. Though in similar cases of this project, the Opposite Parties have been taking benefit of one year on account of stay by Hon’ble Apex court from April 2012 to December 2012 but in the instant case, no exit option is available on record. The Opposite Parties have specifically pleaded that there was stay by the Hon’ble Apex court, which in turn delayed the project. In view of this, the two years period stipulated in the Agreement and one year extended period on account of stay by the Hon’ble Apex Court, expired in January 2014 on 30.01.2014. No justification whatsoever for delay in offering possession beyond 30.01.2014 has been explained by the Opposite Parties. As admitted by the Counsel for the opposite parties, at the time of arguments, the complainant has made payments in the sum of Rs.33,59,527.69. As stated in the written statement, permission for occupation of the unit, in question, was received on 19.07.2016 (Annexure R-1). 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 30.01.2014, 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 its control, is not tenable. The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 31.01.2011 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, approvals for which were also received in due course of time, the initial time taken (more than two years) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of around 3 years 8 months beyond initial stipulated period of two years and 2 years 8 months from one year extended period in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainant. Delay in offering possession to the complainant is an act of clear deficiency of Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are bound to remove the deficiencies/snags, if any, in the construction of the unit, in question, without any delay.

29. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is 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 did not deliver 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 31.01.2011 i.e. by 30.01.2014. There is, thus, inordinate delay of around 2 years 8 months, even beyond the extended period. Possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties on 26.10.2016. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Shri Suman Nandi & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr., Complaint No.277 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2015, held in Para 16 as under:-

“16. On perusal of the Buyer’s Agreement and the affidavits filed by the parties it is clear that the complainants had booked the subject apartments on the expressed promise extended by the opposite parties that subject to Force Majeure, the opposite parties would deliver the possession of the apartments complete in all respect within 30-36 months, as the case may be, of the execution of the Buyers Agreement and being influenced by the said promise the complainants entered into the contract. No doubt in the Buyer’s Agreement some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind for which clause 4.a. for compensating the complainants for delay was incorporated 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.5/- per sq. ft. per month which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view clause 4.a. was meant for computing compensation in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession. If the argument of the opposite party is to be accepted, it would lead to 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 his other business venture at nominal interest of 2-3 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.”

The National Commission granted 12% interest as compensation from the date of default in delivery of possession.

30. 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 read 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.”

31. No doubt, in the Buyer’s Agreement, some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating the complainant 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 complainant 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.

32. Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the cases, 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 beyond two years plus one year extended period i.e. from 31.01.2014, till delivery of possession of the unit would meet the ends of justice. The possession having been offered on 26.10.2016, the complainant shall be entitled to compensation up-to plus 2 months from 26.10.2016 i.e. 25.12.2016 (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period). The complainant is, thus, held entitled to compensation by granting interest @12% on the deposited amount for the delay period as above.

33. In the instant case, as admitted by Counsel for the parties, neither the amount towards demand raised vide offer of possession letter dated 26.10.2016 has been deposited with the Opposite Parties nor the requisite documents submitted.

34. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to him, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to him, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date in the Agreement or latest by 30.01.2014 i.e. within the extended period. Admittedly, the possession of unit, in question, has been offered to the complainant on 26.10.2016. The compensation in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs claimed by the complainant is on the higher side. The complainant has been adequately compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainant 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 complainant, 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 complainant is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

35. Similarly, in following 7 complaints bearing No.832, 842, 779, 876, 889, 952 and 959 all of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table-I below, the possession of the unit(s) was offered by the Opposite Parties on the dates indicated against the respective complaints:-

TABLE – I

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period	Date on which possession offered.	Whether amount and documents deposited after offer of possession.	Compensation credited (Rs.)
A.	B.	C.	D.	E.	F
1.	779/2016	27.06.2011	26.06.2014	15.11.2016	No	4,62,339.00
2.	832/2016	01.12.2010	30.11.2013	26.10.2016	No
3.	842/2016	21.01.2011	20.01.2014	29.10.2016	No
4.	876/2016	04.02.2011	03.02.2014	15.11.2016	No	5,94,775.00
5.	889/2016	12.01.2011 (2^nd allottee) 06.05.2013	11.01.2014	29.10.2016	No
6.	952/2016	11.01.2011	10.01.2014	10.10.2016	No
7.	959/2016	10.03.2011	09.03.2014	10.10.2016	18.01.2017 Documents submitted

36. In the aforesaid 8 complaint cases, at Sr. Nos.1 to 7, in the above Table-I, possession of the units, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant(s) in October/November 2016.

37. In complaint case No.876 of 2016, a specific allegation as regards delay in execution of the Agreement has been made by the complainants. It was stated that the unit was allotted on 29.03.2010, and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 04.02.2011. It was argued that delay in execution of the Agreement was an act of unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, and, therefore, the complainants are entitled to compensation from the date of allotment till Agreement was executed. It may be stated here that the Opposite Parties, in cases pertaining to this project, as also in the instant case, have been pleading that there being stay by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court during the year 2010, it acted as a force majeure and delayed the project. Since the Agreement was executed in February 2011, they (Opposite Parties) are not entitled to any benefit out of this delay. In the face of arguments of the Counsel for the complainants, such stay for about a month by the Hon’ble High Court (Annexures R-5 and R-6) after allotment on 29.03.2010 shall act as force majeure condition. It may also be stated here that it is not immediately after booking of the unit that Buyer’s Agreement is executed and the process, in all fairness, is likely to take 3-4 months. The delay in execution of agreement is more or less justified. The complainants are, therefore, not entitled to any compensation for the alleged delay.

38. In complaint case No.959 of 2016, as stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, during arguments, and as is clear from this Commission order dated 10.03.2017, amount, demand whereof was raised vide offer of possession letter dated 10.10.2016, minus contingent deposit of vat, stood deposited by the complainant on 18.01.2017, in terms of this Commission order dated 02.01.2017 and documents have also been submitted by the complainant. It was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that letter/notice to take possession of the unit, in question, was duly sent to the complainant on 09.03.2017 after removing snags.

39. In rest of the complaints at Sr. Nos.1 to 6, in Table-I above, no deposit, towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letter(s) has been made by the complainant(s).

40. It was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the snags/deficiencies, if any, will be removed.

41. As per offer of possession letters placed, on record, in the aforesaid cases, six months’ time was given to the complainant(s) to complete the formalities and make the payment. In all the above complaints, except complaint case No.959 of 2016 (in which payment stood made by the complainant), Ms. Ekta Jhanji and Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on instructions, stated that in case, any allottee(s) is/are eager to get possession, they will complete formalities and deposit the amount before the period of six months and as and when amount is deposited and necessary documents are submitted, within 3 weeks thereafter, possession will be handed over, to the complainant(s). She further stated that the Opposite Parties are not insisting upon contingent deposit of Vat at this stage, subject to furnishing of an affidavit by the allottee(s) to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. While offering possession, no demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges has been raised. The stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable by the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants need not pay Advocate charges. At the time of execution of sale deed, incidental expenses shall be borne by the complainants.

42. Therefore, in all aforesaid complaints, the complainants are entitled to compensation by way of grant of 12% interest, for the delayed period, up-to the date of offer of possession plus 2 months (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period), as under:-

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of offer of possession	Date up-to which entitled to compensation
1.	779/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
2.	832/2016	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
3.	842/2016	29.10.2016	28.12.2016
4.	876/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
5.	889/2016	29.10.2016	28.12.2016
6.	952/2016	10.10.2016	09.12.2016
7.	959/2016	10.10.2016	09.12.2016

43. If after deposit of amount minus contingent deposit of vat and submission of requisite documents, possession is not delivered, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainants shall be further entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount.

44. In one consumer complaint bearing No.971 of 2016, particulars of which are given in Table-II hereunder, in terms of order dated 06.01.2017 passed by this Commission, possession of the unit, in question, stands delivered to the complainant on 16.03.2017, after deposit of the amount on 17.01.2017, towards demands raised vide offer of possession letter, minus the demand qua component of contingent deposit of vat. This was admitted by the Counsel for the parties during arguments.

TABLE – II

Complaint No.

Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.

Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period

Date on which possession offered.

Date on which possession taken

Compensation, if any, credited.

(Rs.)

DLI if any

(Rs.)

971/2016

03.12.2010

02.12.2013

15.10.2016

16.03.2017

92,939.32

The complainant is held entitled to compensation @12% p.a. interest for the delay period, after 2 years plus 1 year extended period, up-to + 2 months from the date of offer of possession. For delay beyond 30 days, after deposit of amount towards demand raised in offer of possession letter, the complainant shall be further entitled to compensation @12% interest.

45. The complainants in the complaints indicated in Tables I & II above, are also entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in rendering service.

46. In Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.779, 842, 876, 889, 952 & 959 all of 2016, the complainants are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.

47. However, in Consumer Complaint bearing No.832 and 971 both of 2016, there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.1,25,244.37 and Rs.92,939.32, against the complainant(s). Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit. Therefore, the complainant(s), in these cases, are not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, in each case, would serve the ends of justice.

48. In complaint bearing No.830 of 2016, particulars of which are given in Table-III hereunder, the complainant is second allottee and before transferring the unit, in her favour, she had furnished an undertaking on 18.12.2014 to the effect that she shall not claim any compensation. Paras 3 & 4 of the undertaking furnished by the complainant (at Pages 265 to 267 of the written statement) are extracted hereunder:-

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

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

TABLE – III

Complaint Case No.

Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.

Whether original allottee?

Due date for possession after one year extended period

Date on which possession offered.

Whether amount and documents deposited after offer of possession.

830/2016

06.12.2010

Second Allottee

05.01.2015

(Undertaking given on 18.12.2014)

05.12.2013

15.11.2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

50. Therefore, in this complaint bearing No.830 of 2016, the complainant is entitled to possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects on payment of amount due, and compensation by way of interest @12% per annum on the deposited amount for the delayed period from the dates of furnishing undertaking/date when unit was transferred in his name i.e. 05.01.2015 till offer of possession on 15.11.2016 + up-to two months (30 days for making payment and 30 days as grace period). The complainant shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.

51. In three consumer complaints bearing Nos.773, 869 and 982 all of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table-IV below, the complainants have sought refund of the deposited amounts:-

TABLE – IV

Sr. No.	Description/Details	Complaint Case No.
		773/2016	869/2016	982/2016
1.	Amount deposited. (Rs.)	Rs.40,87,157.46	Rs.41,46,526.00	Rs.58,58,384.00
2.	Date of Agreement.	09.02.2011	11.04.2011	25.05.2011
3.	Due date for offering possession.	08.02.2014	10.04.2014	24.05.2014
4.	Whether possession offered	On 15.11.2016	Not offered	On 10.10.2016
5.	Delay in offer of possession	2 Years 9 Months	3 Years	2 Years 4 Months
6.	Whether first allottee	Yes	2^nd allottee (18.03.2013)	Yes
7.	DLI	Rs.2,697.00	Rs.44,861.04	Rs.6,99,897.05

52. In the Chart submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, during arguments, receipt of the amount(s) as shown against the Column ‘Amount deposited (Rs.)’ at Sr. No.1 in the table, has been admitted.

53. As is evident from record of the above complaints, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreements were executed on 09.02.2011 and 11.04.2011 and 25.05.2011 respectively. 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 08.02.2014, 10.04.2014 and 24.05.2014 respectively. In complaint cases bearing Nos.773 and 982 both of 2016, the possession of the unit(s), in question, was offered on 15.11.2016 and 10.10.2016 respectively. However in complaint case No.869 of 2016, possession has still not been offered by the Opposite Parties. Thus, there has been inordinate delay 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. 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 complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited with the Opposite Party. 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 complainant 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.

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, the complainants, in these complaint cases are held entitled to refund of the amount alongwith interest @15% per annum.

54. In complaint cases bearing No.773 and 982 both of 2016, the complainants are held entitled to interest at the aforesaid rate of 15% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits.

55. As regards complaint case bearing No.869 of 2016, the complainants are second allottees, in whose name, the unit, in question, was transferred on 18.03.2013. Therefore, in the light of ratio of judgment in case titled ‘Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors.’, Complaint Case No.147 of 2016 decided by this Commission on 22.08.2016, on the amounts paid by the previous allottee to the Opposite Parties, the complainants shall be entitled to interest @15% per annum from the date when the payment of the said amount was made by the complainants to the original allottee/date of endorsement and for the remaining amount paid by them (complainants) to the Opposite Parties, the complainants shall be entitled to refund alongwith the same rate of interest i.e. 15% per annum from the respective dates of deposits.

56. In these cases, the complainants are also held entitled to compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in rendering service. In complaint cases bearing No.773 and 869 both of 2016, the complainants, are held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-.

57. In complaint case No.982 of 2016, there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.6,99,897.05 on account of delay in payment of installments. It is the categoric case of the complainant, as averred in Para 7 of the complaint, that he in April 2011, made a request to the Opposite Parties to change the address by supplying in writing his new address i.e. Tajinder Pal Singh, Q.No.3/32, Gujarat Refinery Township, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, Vadodara, Gujarat. Perusal of record shows that the Opposite Parties, vide their letter dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure C-2) sent the Agreement for signing at the above mentioned new address after confirming the same from the complainant. However, perusal of demand notices dated 02.02.2012, 23.02.2012, 19.03.2012, 10.05.2013, 09.07.2013 and 08.11.2013 (Annexure C-4 colly.) shows that the same were sent on the old address of the complainant, which was “Tajinder Pal Singh, Cogeneration Plant, P & U Deptt. IOCL, Gujarat Refinery, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, Vadodara, Gujarat”. The case of the complainant is that when he came to know in February 2014, about those demand notices sent on his old address, he made all the payments thereof within 15 days i.e. Rs.58,000/- on 05.02.2014, Rs.5,00,000/- again on 05.02.2014 and Rs.22,11,899.00 on 18.02.2014. Thus, it was clearly on account of deficiency of the Opposite Parties that there was delay in making payments by the complainant. The complainant on his coming to know about the due payments, deposited the same, as stated above. The delay is, therefore, not attributable to the complainant. This Commission, in cases where there is delay in remittance of installments, has been granting lesser amount of compensation for mental agony etc. In the face of circumstances explained above, the complainant, being not at fault, is held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,75,000/- as granted in complaint cases No.773 and 869 both of 2016.

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

59. For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.737, 773, 779, 830, 832, 842, 869, 876, 889, 952, 959, 971 & 982 all of 2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

737, 779, 832, 842, 876, 889, 952 & 959 all of 2016

In these eight cases, the Opposite Parties have offered possession in October 2016 and November 2016, asking the complainants to deposit the amount(s) within six months. Amount towards demand raised, except the demands towards, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges stands deposited by the complainants only in one complaint bearing No.959 of 2016, whereas in rest of eight cases, no amount towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letter(s) has been deposited. In these seven cases, possession of the unit(s) in question, have not been delivered. As already discussed in Para 41 above, 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 amount towards demand raised, except the demands towards, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges and Stamp duty and registration charges,, if any, and as and when, amount is deposited and necessary documents are submitted, possession will be handed over to complainant(s), by the Opposite Parties within 3 weeks.

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), with effect from 31.01.2014, 27.06.2014, 01.12.2013, 21.01.2014, 04.02.2014, 12.01.2014, 11.01.2014 & 10.03.2014 respectively up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 25.12.2016, 14.01.2017, 25.12.2016, 28.12.2016, 14.01.2017, 28.12.2016, 09.12.2016 & 09.12.2016 respectively, 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. In case, the Opposite Parties fail to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment by the complainants, for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10^th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made. [In CC No.779 & 876 both of 2016, compensation in the sum of Rs.4,62,339.00 and Rs.5,94,775.00 respectively on account of delay in possession has been credited in Final Statement of Account. The same shall be deducted from the compensation amount by way of interest @12% for delay period]
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case i.e. [in CC No.737, 779, 842, 876, 889, 952 & 959 all of 2016], and Rs.1,25,000/- in CC No.832 of 2016 on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, in each case, 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.

Complaint Case No.952 of 2016 has already been dismissed against Opposite Party No.3 in that complaint, vide order dated 06.01.2017.

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

971 of 2016.

In this case, possession of the unit, in question, stands handed over to the complainant on 16.03.2017.

The Opposite Party is held liable and directed as under:-

(i)

Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant.

(ii)

To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, with effect from 03.12.2013 till 14.12.2016, 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.

For delay in delivering possession, beyond 30 days, after payment, by the complainant, the complainant shall be further entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. till the date of handing over of possession.

(iii)

Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/-, as litigation costs, to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

830 of 2016.

In this case, the complainant, being a second allottee, had given an undertaking on 18.12.2014 to the Opposite Parties not to claim compensation for the delayed period.

The Opposite Parties are held, jointly and severally, liable and directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of the unit, allotted in favour of the complainant, complete in all respects, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date balance payment, if any, is made/documents are completed by the complainant.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant.
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from the date of undertaking i.e. 18.12.2014 up-to 14.01.2017, 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. In case, the Opposite Parties fail to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment by the complainant, for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10^th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.
(iv)	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, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

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).

As regards the amount of contingent Vat deposit, the complainant(s) shall furnish an affidavit to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. 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. The complainant(s) shall deposit contingent vat within three weeks from the date the same is paid by Opposite Parties to the Government and the complainant(s) are informed of this fact. Delay beyond three weeks from the receipt of notice shall attract simple interest @12% per annum.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

773 and 982 both of 2016.

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

(i) To refund the amount of Rs.40,87,157.46 in CC/773/2016 and Rs.58,58,384.00 in CC/982/2016 alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the 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.1,75,000/-, in each case, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment & deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), in each case, 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;

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

869 of 2016.

The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i) To refund the amount of Rs.41,64,526.00 alongwith simple interest @15% per annum (simple), to the complainants, , with effect from 18.03.2013 for the amount(s) paid uptil 18.03.2013 by the previous allottee and from the respective dates of deposits, in respect of payments made w.e.f. 18.03.2013 onwards, within a period of 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.1,75,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment & deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

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

61. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.773, 779, 830, 832, 842, 869, 876, 889, 952, 959, 971 & 982 all of 2016.

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

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

Pronounced.

21.04.2017

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/737/2016

Yogesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Kaajla, Adv.

21 Apr 2017

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