Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/796/2016

Virsa Singh Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Yadav, Adv.

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	796 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Sh. Virsa Singh Dhillon S/o Sh. Meja Singh Dhillon, H.No.35, Sector-2, Panchkula.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	571 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Praveen Kumar Chaudhary S/o Sh. B. S. Chaudhary, R/o 604, Himadri Apartments, 17-B, New Cantt. Road, Hathi Barkala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand – 248001.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Principal Officer, having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-191-192, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh – 160017.

 

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sumit Narang, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	585 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Dr. Dhanbir Chand Katoch S/o Late Sh. Bidhi Chand Katoch, resident of Village Balakrupi, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited having its office at SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160009 through its Managing Director.

 

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	614 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Lakhbir Singh Cheema, Cheema House-1, North Avenue, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

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

 

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Shubham Jain, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	632 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	23.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Sombir Singh son of Ranbir Singh, resident of House No.131, Kungar, Bhiwani (Haryana).

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:-

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

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	708 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

1. Dr. Deepak Kumar Sharma son of Jagdev Kumar Sharma,
2. Dr. Anupama Sharma wife of Dr. Deepak Kumar Sharma,

Both are residents of House No.302, Tower B-5, Nirmal Chhaya Society, VIP Road, Zirakpur Distt. Mohali.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:-

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

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	711 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Urmila W/o Dilbagh Singh resident of House No.2077, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:-

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

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	749 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	27.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

1. Sunil Kumar son of Inder Singh,
2. Banita W/o Sunil Kumar,

Both are resident of VPO Khatkar, Distt. Jind, Haryana.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

Site Address:-

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

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainants.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	751 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	27.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Anuradha Deswal W/o Rahul Deswal R/o House No.241, Sector-6, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

Site Address:-

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

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

Argued by:

 

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	754 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Virendar Kaushal s/o Late Sh. Madhu Sudan Kaushal r/o #397/B2, Officers Colony, Bitna Road, Pinjore, Panchkula.

 

                                            .........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.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	782 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Col. Rajesh Kanwar S/o Sh. Ajit Singh Kanwar R/o SPO, CAFVD Kirkee, Pune, Maharashtra – 908798.

 

                                            .........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.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	799 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Dr. M. C. Sood S/o Late Sh. Badari Prasad Sood, D-4, Parasdas Garden, Near CPRI, Shimla.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

                                 Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

Consumer Complaint	:	850 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

1. Kamal Raj Aggarwal S/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
2. Anita W/o Kamal Raj Aggarwal,

Both R/o H.No.LIG 17, Sector-3, Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh.

 

                                            .........Complainants.

Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	851 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Raj Kumari Thakur W/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, Aadi-ish, Power House Road, Saproon, Solan Pin-173211.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	852 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2017

 

Dinesh Singh S/o Sh. Satyavir Singh R/o House No.17, Sector-4, Rohtak-124001.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

 

1. 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 & Marketing.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

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

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

               SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

       

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

             By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid 15 consumer complaints bearing Nos.571, 585, 614, 632, 708, 711, 749, 751, 754, 782, 796, 799, 850, 851 and  852 all of 2016.

2.          At the time of arguments, on 13.02.2017, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that issues in law and facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the aforesaid 15 complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

3.          Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.796 of 2016, titled as ‘Virsa Singh Dhillon Vs. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’.

4.          In brief, the facts are that the Opposite Parties developed a Residential Group Housing Project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex. On the basis of advertisements, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and booked an independent floor with total area of 1550 sq. ft. in DLF Valley Project on 17.03.2010 for his residential purpose and paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide receipt RVL/CRB/00333/0310. The Opposite Parties entered into an Independent Floor Buyers Agreement (Annexure C-2) on 20.01.2011 whereby independent floor No.C-2/30 FF (First Floor) with parking number P-1F was allotted to the complainant. The total price of the unit was fixed as Rs.35,37,099.78 for the saleable area of 1550 Sq. Feet.  In Para 6 of the complaint, it was stated that till 05.01.2016, the complainant had paid Rs.34,35,050.83 to the Opposite Parties.

5.          As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. The Opposite Parties also published an advertisement dated 13.01.2014 stating that possession would be delivered in 2014 but nothing was done. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1/Builder vide letter dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure C-4) offered physical possession of the unit, in question, while admitting the fact of receipt of occupation certificate and raised demand of Rs.9,36,570.16, to be paid within six months with a condition that non-payment within six months of final statement of account would attract interest/“Holding Charges” @Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month as per terms and Condition No.13 of the Agreement. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 is now just giving the paper possession and not the legal possession of the unit.

6.          It was further stated that the complainant came to know after visiting the project site on various occasions that the unit, in question, and other amenities/facilities, as promised, were not even ready for possession. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties demanded Rs.25,477/- for contingent deposit of Vat, which was neither mentioned in the Agreement nor in the schedule of payment. It was further stated that the complainant has invested his hard earned money and delay in the grant of possession has caused financial loss and grave mental agony and disturbance to him.

7.          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 and legal possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects after obtaining all due permissions and certificates including the Completion Certificate inter-alia from the concerned authorities; pay interest calculated @12% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of delay in handing over of the possession till the date, possession is handed over to the complainant; withdraw the demand of Rs.25,477/- raised on account of contingent deposit of Vat; award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance caused to the complainant due to the actions/omissions of Opposite Parties; Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses; and grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8.          The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement stated that the complainant filed the instant complaint in total disregard to the terms of Floor Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties. It was further stated that the complainant is backing out from the executed contract. It was further stated that occupation certificate (Annexure R/1) was received on 08.01.2016 and offer of possession letter dated 26.10.2016 was sent to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant had the full knowledge about the terms of Agreement dated 20.01.2011 executed between the parties. It was further stated that the complainant has prayed for unfounded demands, which were not as per executed terms of the Agreement and, thus, the Opposite Parties also 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 form dated 19.03.2010. 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.

9.          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 02.04.2013 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. It was stated that occupation certificate(s) of 1669 units had already been received and offer of possession was under process. 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.

10.        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 purchased by him for investment purposes and earning profits and that when given the option to exit vide letter dated 02.04.2013, the complainant agreed to continue with allotment and delay and, as such, he (complainant) voluntarily waived of his right to raise any grievance. An objection was also raised that this Commission did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint in as much as the parties agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of all other Courts except the Courts at Panchkula and High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Further, an objection was also raised in the written statement that as per Clause 55 in the Agreement, all disputes arising out of the Agreement are to be settled amicably, failing which, they shall be referred to the Arbitration. 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 14, it was further stated that approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans sought on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively. 

             The Opposite Parties moved Miscellaneous Applications under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for referring the matter to the sole arbitration, in the following complaints:-

 

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Miscellaneous Application No.
1.	796/2016	46/2017
2.	614/2016	482/2016
3.	711/2016	616/2016
4.	754/2016	595/2016
5.	799/2016	45/2017

 

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.  

11.        On merits, apart from reiterating above, it was denied by the Opposite Parties that the amount paid by the complainant was Rs.34,35,050.83. It was further stated that after occupancy certificate, due to increase in area, the total price of the property was Rs.45,10,463.95 plus service tax for an area of 1751 sq. ft. 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 date of 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 letter dated 26.10.2016 was sent to the complainant and the demand raised was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that in the letter offering possession, demands were raised by the Company towards increased area in the floor, registration of the floor, electrical charges, IBMS charges, club charges etc. in order to deliver possession of the said floor strictly in accordance with the executed Agreement. It was further stated that vide offer of possession letter, the complainant was requested to remit the outstanding dues and to furnish the documents in order to facilitate the conveyance of the floor, in question. It was reiterated that occupation certificate was already received on 08.01.2016. 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.

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

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

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

15.        It is evident that the complainant was allotted Independent Floor No.DVF-C-2/30-FF in DLF Valley, Panchkula by the Opposite Parties and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement between the parties was executed at Chandigarh on 20.01.2011 (Annexure C-2). The total price of the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.35,37,099.78, besides other charges, securities, deposits and taxes etc. as specified in the Application/Agreement. The complainant, in all, actually paid a sum of Rs.43,46,621.62 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 13.02.2017. 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 also on record that vide letter dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure R-3), they (Opposite Parties) sought further time of 12 months, in addition to 24 months, to complete the construction work. 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. As is evident from Annexure C-4/R-1 Colly., possession of the unit, in question, has been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant on 26.10.2016, after receipt of occupation certificate on 08.01.2016. Alleging offer of possession to be not complete, the present complaint was filed on 11.11.2016. 

16.        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.

17.        Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, in the instant case, was executed between the parties on 20.01.2011 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.

18.           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.”

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

20.        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 project of the Opposite Parties is situated in District Panchkula and possession of the floor was to be delivered in Panchkula, a part of cause of action arose at Panchkula. 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 82 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 (Annexure C-2) was also executed between the parties on 20.01.2011 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.

21.        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.

22.        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”

 

 

23.        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.  

24.        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. Rather, the complaint in his complaint, has clearly stated that he purchased the flat, in question, solely for residential purposes. 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.  

25.        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 right to raise any grievance. This plea of the Opposite Parties is not well based. While seeking option vide letter dated 02.04.2013, the complainant was informed of delay and extension of one year was sought. One year extended period expired on 19.01.2014 whereas the possession was offered on 26.10.2016. 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 19.01.2014, 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.  

26.         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 20.01.2011 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 an admitted fact, that by making reference to above fact of granting stay, which resulted into  delay in construction at the site, consent of the complainant  was sought, vide letter dated 02.04.2013, to

 

 

complete construction within further 12 months. Option was also given to the complainant, to seek refund of the deposited amount, alongwith simple interest @9% p.a. The complainant exercised former option and continued to make payment(s) thereafter. As stated in the written statement, permission for occupation of the unit, in question, was received on 08.01.2016 (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 19.01.2014, and by not abiding by the commitment made, the Opposite Parties 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 20.01.2011 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 (approximately 2 years) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, is, therefore, of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of around four years beyond initial stipulated period of two years in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are, thus, deficient in rendering service.

27.         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 20.01.2011 i.e. by 19.01.2014. There is, thus, inordinate delay of around 3 years, even beyond the extended period. Possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties on 26.10.2016 i.e. just before filing of the complaint. 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.

28.        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.”

29.        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.  

30.        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 19.01.2014, 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 granting interest @12% on the deposited amount for the delay period as above.

31.        The complainant, in the instant case, in terms of this Commission’s order dated 16.11.2016, as admitted by Counsel for the parties, made payment of Rs.9,11,570/- except contingent deposit of vat on 07.01.2017. Despite payment of the demand raised vide offer of possession letter less contingent deposit of vat by the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession within 30 days i.e. by 06.02.2017. Therefore, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainant shall be further entitled to compensation @12% interest till possession is handed over.

32.         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 19.01.2014 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/-.

33.        Similarly, in following 12 complaints bearing No.585, 614, 632, 708, 711, 749, 751, 782, 799, 850, 851 and 852 all of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table-A below, the possession of the unit(s) was offered by the Opposite Parties on the dates indicated against the respective complaints:-

TABLE – A

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.	Date of Occupation Certificate.	Compensation, if any, credited.
1	585/2016	24.01.2011	23.01.2014	15.11.2016	09.09.2016	Rs.6,00,988/-
2	614/2016	27.06.2011	26.06.2014	15.11.2016	29.06.2016	-
3	632/2016	06.06.2011	05.06.2014	15.11.2016	02.05.2016	-
4	708/2016	07.12.2010	06.12.2013	26.10.2016	13.01.2016	Rs.6,16,452/-
5	711/2016	09.12.2010	08.12.2013	08.06.2016	13.01.2016	Rs.5,34,317/-
6	749/2016	18.01.2011	17.01.2014	05.10.2016	05.04.2016	-
7	751/2016	07.02.2011	06.02.2014	26.10.2016	02.05.2016	-
8	782/2016	03.12.2010	02.12.2013	10.10.2016	05.04.2016	-
9	799/2016	24.12.2010	23.12.2013	29.10.2016	19.07.2016	Rs.5,47,694/-
10	850/2016	30.06.2013	29.06.2015	05.10.2016	09.07.2016	-
11	851/2016	11.02.2011	10.02.2014	26.10.2016	19.07.2016	-
12	852/2016	01.02.2011	31.01.2014	15.11.2016	09.06.2016	-

 

34.        In two compliant cases viz. CC/585/2016 and CC/799/2016, against the demand raised by the Opposite Parties, while offering possession, the complainant(s), deposited an amount of Rs.5,39,561.11 (as is apparent from order dated 09.01.2017) and Rs.8,75,001.00 (in terms of order dated 16.11.2016 & as is apparent from order dated 16.01.2017), except contingent deposit of vat, with the Opposite Parties on 28.11.2016 and 02.01.2017 respectively, as indicated in the chart/sheet given by Counsel for the complainants during arguments. However, during arguments, it was conceded by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties that in the aforesaid two cases, possession has still not been delivered to the complainant(s) in terms of orders passed.

35.        In the aforesaid two complaints, the complainants made payment on 28.11.2016 and 02.01.2017, within almost two months from the date of offer of possession. The complainants are held entitled to interest @12% for the delayed period up-to the date the possession is handed over.

36.         In complaint case No.585 of 2016, as is apparent from offer of possession letter dated 15.11.2016, placed, on record, benefit in the sum of Rs.6,00,988/- on account of compensation for delayed period, has been given to the complainant(s) in the Final Statement of Account. Further, it was admitted by Counsel for the Opposite Parties in the Chart given during arguments that compensation in the sum of Rs.6,16,452/-, Rs.5,34,317/- and Rs.5,47,694/- has also been given to the complainants in Consumer Complaints Nos.708, 711 and 799 all of 2016 respectively. On query to the Counsel that credit of compensation does not find mention in the possession letters, as is generally the practice, the Counsel reiterated that the same has been credited in the account of the complainants.  Therefore, in these cases, the benefit of compensation given to complainant(s) shall be deducted from compensation amount by way of interest @12% calculated for delayed period.

37.        In two consumer complaints bearing Nos.711 of 2016 and 749 of 2016,, in terms of orders dated 21.10.2016 and 02.11.2016 passed by this Commission, possession of the units, in question, stands delivered to the complainants on 19.12.2016 and 07.02.2017, after deposit of the amount towards demands raised, minus the demand qua component of contingent deposit of vat, vide offer of possession letters dated 08.06.2016 and 05.10.2016 respectively. This was stated and admitted by the Counsel for the complainants, in the chart given during arguments. Therefore, Miscellaneous Applications filed by the complainants seeking interim relief for staying illegal demands, in the aforesaid Compliant Cases bearing Nos.711 of 2016 & 749 of 2016 stand dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

38.        However, in the remaining consumer complaints bearing Nos.614, 632, 708, 751, 782, 850, 851 and 852 all of 2016, the complainant(s) did not deposit any amount towards demand raised vide offer of possession letters and possession of the units have still not been delivered. Therefore, in these complaints, except complaint No.850 of 2016, 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.	614/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
2.	632/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
3.	708/2016	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
4.	751/2016	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
5.	782/2016	10.10.2016	09.12.2016
6.	850/2016	05.10.2016	04.12.2016
7.	851/2016	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
8.	852/2016	15.11.2016	14.01.2017

 

             If after deposit of amount minus contingent deposit of vat, possession is not delivered, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainants shall be further entitled to compensation @12% interest.

             In Consumer Complaint No.850 of 2016, Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 30.06.2013 and two years period for handing over possession came to an end on 29.06.2015. Since stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was for a period of eight months, during the year 2012, the Opposite Parties are not entitled to benefit of extended period of one year for possession. The possession having been offered on 05.10.2016, the delay is of around 15 months only. The complainants are, therefore, not entitled to same compensation as this Commission grants in other cases of this project where delay is enormous. Compensation by granting interest @10% p.a. on the deposited amount w.e.f. 30.06.2015 up-to date of offer of possession plus 2 months i.e. up-to 04.12.2016; compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service in the sum of Rs.1 Lac (there is DLI of Rs.85,160.00) and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- shall serve the ends of justice.

39.        As per offer of possession letters placed, on record, six months’ time was given to the complainant(s) to complete the formalities and make the payment without delayed interest.

40.        Ms. Ekta Jhanji and Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on instructions, stated that in case, any allottee is eager to get possession, he/she will complete formalities and deposit the amount before the period of six months and as and when amount is deposited and necessary documents are submitted, within 3 weeks thereafter, possession will be handed over, to the complainant(s). It was further stated that contingent Vat deposit will not be insisted upon at this stage, subject to furnishing of an affidavit by the allottee(s) to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. In cases relating to this project, earlier the Opposite Parties, at the time of offering possession, were also raising demand   on   account   of  stamp  duty  and  registration charges but now while offering possession, no demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges has been raised.

41.        The complainants in the complaints indicated in Table-A above, are also entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in rendering service.

42.        In eight Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.585, 632, 708, 711, 749, 782, 799 & 851 all of 2016, the complainants are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case.

43.        However, in Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.614/2016, 751/2016 & 852/2016, there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.93,587.00, Rs.62,746.00 and Rs.91,718/- respectively against the complainants. Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit(s). Therefore, in these complaints, the complainants are not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in each of these cases would serve the ends of justice.

44.        In two Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.571/2016 and 754/2016, details whereof are given hereunder in Table B, possession of the unit(s), in question, has not been offered to the complainant(s) by the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

 

 

TABLE – B

 

1	2	3	4
Complaint Case No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after one year extended period	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate.
571/2016	11.04.2011	10.04.2014	21.10.2016 (as per chart)
754/2016	02.12.2010	01.12.2013	21.10.2016

 

45.        In these complaints, occupation certificates of the units, in question, have been received by the Opposite Parties on 21.10.2016. As stated above, possession of the units, in question, have not been offered by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, in view of observations made in the preceding paras, the complainants, in these cases, are entitled to possession of the units, in question, complete in all respects on payment of amounts due. The complainants are held entitled to 12% p.a. interest on the deposited amounts for the delayed period beyond three years i.e. from 11.04.2014 and 02.12.2013 respectively till possession is handed over.

46.        In CC/754/2016, the complainant is also held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.

47.        Since, in CC/571/2016, there is DLI in the sum of Rs.56,225.39 on account of delay in payment of installments, the complainant is not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

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

49.        For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.571, 585, 614, 632, 708, 711, 749, 751, 754, 782, 796, 799, 850, 851 and  852 all of 2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

796 and 799 both of 2016

 

             In these cases, the Opposite Parties offered possession in October 2016. Except contingent deposit of vat, payment towards demand(s) raised while offering possession, has been deposited by the complainants. In these two cases, the complainants deposited the amount(s) on 07.01.2017 and 02.01.2017 respectively. The complainants shall make the balance payment, if any, and complete the documentation, if not already done, within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

             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.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within two months 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 20.01.2014 and 24.12.2013 respectively up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 25.12.2016 and 28.12.2016 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.       For failure of the Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days, from 07.01.2017 and 02.01.2017 respectively, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for the delay period up-to 28.02.2017, shall be payable by 1st April, 2017 and thereafter for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default till payment is made.
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case, 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.

 

 

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

585 of 2016.

 

               In this case, on receipt of offer of possession by the complainant vide letter dated 15.11.2016, the complainant deposited the payment towards demand raised except contingent deposit of vat. The payment having been made on 28.11.2016, the amount was deposited within 13 days. Till the date of hearing, the Opposite Party had not handed over physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant.

             The Opposite Party is, therefore, held 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.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within two months 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, with effect from 24.01.2014 up-till 28.02.2017, 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.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the complainant  w.e.f. 01.03.2017, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant, 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:

711 and 749 both of 2016.

 

             In these cases, possession of the units, in question, stands handed over to the complainants on 19.12.2016 and 07.02.2017 respectively in terms of this Commission order dated 21.10.2016 and 02.11.2016.

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

(i)	Execute and get registered the sale deed(s) 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 09.12.2013 & 18.01.2014 till 07.08.2016 & 04.12.2016 respectively, 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.
(iii)	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 complainants, in each of these cases, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

614, 632, 708, 751, 782, 851 & 852 all of 2016

 

             In these cases, the Opposite Parties have offered possession in October 2016 and November 2016, asking the complainants to deposit the amount(s) within six   months. As already discussed in Para 40 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, 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  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 two months 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 27.06.2014, 06.06.2014, 07.12.2013, 07.02.2014, 03.12.2013, 11.02.2014 & 01.02.2014 respectively up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 14.01.2017, 14.01.2017, 25.12.2016, 25.12.2016, 09.12.2016, 25.12.2016 & 14.01.2017 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 10th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default till payment is made.
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case, [In CC/614/2016, CC/751/2016 & CC/852/2016 - Rs.1,25,000/- in each case] 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.

 

 

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

850 of 2016.

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

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit, allotted in favour of the complainants, complete in all respects, to the complainants, within a period of 30 days, from the date  payment is made/documents are completed  by the complainants.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within two months from the date of handing over of possession to the complainants. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainants.
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @10% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainants, with effect from 30.06.2015 up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 04.12.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @13% p.a., instead of 10% 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 @10% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @13% p.a., instead of 10% p.a., from the date of default till payment is made.
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainants, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @10% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

571 and 754 both of 2016.

                 In these two cases, possession of the units have not been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainants.

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

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within three months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amounts, by the complainant(s) due against them.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within two months 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 amounts, to the complainant(s), with effect from 11.04.2014 & 02.12.2013 till 28.02.2017 respectively, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the complainant(s)  w.e.f. 01.03.2017, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (In CC/754/2016) and Rs.1,25,000/- (In CC/571/2016) on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

50.        In 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).

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

52.        Compensation on account of delay in possession, in the sum of Rs.6,00,988/-, Rs.6,16,452/-, Rs.5,34,317/- and Rs.5,47,694/- credited in Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.585 of 2016, 708 of 2016, 711 of 2016 and 799 of 2016 respectively, shall be deducted from the compensation amount arrived at by way of interest @12% p.a. for delay period.

53.        Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.571, 585, 614, 632, 708, 711, 749, 751, 754, 782, 799, 850, 851 and  852 all of 2016.

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

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

Pronounced.

27.02.2017.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Ad