Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/121/2015

Tarun Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Universal Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Chopra,Adv.

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	121 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	21.08.2015

 

Sh. Tarun Aggarwal son of Sh. S. K. Aggarwal resident of H.No.266, Sector 17, Panchkula.

…..Complainant.

Versus

1.      DLF Universal Limited, having its registered office at Shopping Mall, 3^rd Floor, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002 through its Authorized Representative.

2.      DLF Universal Limited, Shop No.101-102, DLF City Centre, IT Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh-160101 through its Authorized Representative.

2^nd Address:- DLF Universal Limited, SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

  …..Opposite Parties.

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

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gaurav Chopra, Advocates for the complainant.

Sh. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties launched a residential-cum-commercial project in the name of “Hyde Park Estate”, New Chandigarh (Mullanpur Planning Area), District SAS Nagar, Punjab, for which, various advertisements in local newspapers were issued. It was stated that in pursuance to aforesaid advertisements, the complainant submitted an application dated 29.03.2011 to Opposite Party No.2, for allotment of a residential plot. It was further stated that the complainant paid Rs.12,00,000/- at the time of booking vide receipt dated 29.03.2011. It was further stated that the complainant was allotted plot No.HPE-R2-F108, admeasuring 292 sq. meters, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,05,60,207.03Ps, which included the basic sale price, external development charges and maintenance security, vide allotment letter dated 31.3.2011. It was further stated that the schedule of payment viz. “Two Years Plan” was also enclosed with the allotment letter aforesaid.

2.         It was further stated that as per the Information Brochure given to the complainant by the Opposite Parties, the project included 4/6 passenger elevator, 24 hour water supply, 24 hour water backup, surface car parking apart from other amenities including chemist shop, stationary stores, vegetable and grocery store, ATMs, repair shops, club house, pool side café, gymnasium, tennis court, billiards, badminton court and two squash court etc. It was further stated that the said Brochure also mentioned the provision of major access road to the Hyde Park Terraces ranging from 100 ft. to 120 ft. in width; provision of 100 ft. wide green belt of one of the 120 ft. wide sector roads with further provision of internal spine roads 80 ft. in width and the distributor road being 60 ft. in width. It was further stated that the Opposite parties gave assurance that the aforesaid facilities would be in place at the time of offering possession of the residential plot.

3.         It was further stated that the complainant had paid the following installments as per the Schedule of Payment appended with the allotment letter dated 31.3.2011 :-

Sr. No.	Mode of Payment	Date of Receipt	Amount (Rs.)
1.	Cheque  No.008923 dated 29.05.2011	06.06.2011	13,96,302.00
2.	Cheque No.008924 dated 26.07.2011	26.07.2011	10,38,520.00
3.	Cheque No.008925 dated 27.07.2011	29.09.2011	10,32,905.00
4.	Cheque No.008926 dated 12.12.2011	12.12.2011	10,44,000.00
5.	Cheque No.008927 dated 20.03.2012	20.03.2012	10,31,005.00
6.	Cheque No.490637 dated 07.06.2012	09.06.2012	8,00,000.00
7.	Cheque No.096659 dated 07.06.2012	09.06.2012	2,38,520.00
8.	Cheque No.008928 dated 17.09.2012	17.09.2012	10,27,417.00
Total:			76,08,669.00

 

It was further stated that till date, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.88,08,669/- i.e. (Rs.12,00,000.000 as booking amount + Rs.76,08,669.00 as installments as per schedule of payment), to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that after various meetings held between the complainant and the officials of the Opposite Parties in the office of Opposite Party No.2, a Plot Buyer’s Agreement, in duplicate, was issued to the complainant vide letter dated 24.11.2011 (Annexure C-4) for signing the same at designated place and submit the same, in duplicate, to DLF India Limited, Chandigarh Technology Park, Plot No,2 Tower-D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant duly signed the said Agreement and submitted the same in the office of Opposite Party No.2, which fact was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that, thus, Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-6) was executed between the parties on 25.07.2012 at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the physical possession of the plot, in question, was to be handed over by the Opposite Parties to the complainant within a period of two years from the date of booking the said residential plot i.e. by March 2013. It was further stated that the complainant visited the site, in question, in October 2012 and noticed that there was no development activity. It was further stated that after having paid an amount of Rs.88,08,669/- till 17.09.2012, the complainant did not make payment of the 9^th installment on account of apparent delay in offering possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated time.

4.         It was further stated that the delay of eight months on part of the Opposite Parties from the date of issuance of the allotment letter till the date of issuance of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was for the reason that as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as ascertained by the complainant from the Agreement executed between the Opposite Parties and one Mr. Rajesh Jain in respect of Plot No.R2-E-313,  in terms of Clause 32 thereof, the Opposite Parties had undertaken to offer possession of the residential plot within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was further stated that admittedly, the Opposite Parties till the end of March 2013, had not offered possession of the plot, in question. It was further stated that the complainant issued a letter dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure C-7) to the Opposite Parties, to inform the date of handing over possession of the plot and also disputed the claim of the Opposite Parties for payment of 9^th installment.

5.         It was further stated that as a matter of abundant caution, the complainant had also undertaken to make payment of the outstanding dues as and when the offer for handing over physical possession of the residential plot was made by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant served a legal notice dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure C-8) upon the Opposite Parties but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant served another legal notice dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure C-9) upon the Opposite Parties but nothing came out. It was further stated that as per the information gathered from the complainant, no regular electricity supply has till date been provided to the Opposite Parties by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). It was further stated that similarly, no facility or provision has so far been made for providing water supply and sewerage in the project, in question.

6.         It was further stated that neither the Opposite Parties received the completion certificate nor they obtained the consent letters from the Punjab Pollution Control Board till date. It was further stated that till date, even the requisite clearance from the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has not been issued to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

7.         When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the total principal amount of Rs.88,08,669/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit; pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost.

8.         The Opposite Parties, put in appearance, on 13.07.2015. They filed their joint written reply on 07.08.2015. In their written version, the Opposite Parties, took up certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant was not a consumer and rather a speculator, who purchased the property, in question, in order to obtain profits out of real estate speculation; and that this Commission was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the existence of Arbitration clause No.33 in the application for allotment (Annexure R-1 colly.)

9.         On merits, it was stated that the complainant applied for allotment of residential plot No.HPE-R2-108 measuring 292.64 sq. mts. through application form dated 24.03.2011 in the township floated by the Opposite Parties and, accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs.12 Lacs. It was further stated that the complainant as per the application for allotment had opted for the installment payment plan, according to which, he was to make total payment of Rs.1,05,60,207.03Ps in a period of 24 months in total 10 installments. It was admitted that the complainant up-till 17.09.2012 made a payment of Rs.88,08,669/- being the payments up-till the 8^th installment. It was further stated that the complainant defaulted in making payment of the 9^th instalment, for which he was liable to pay the delayed interest charges.

10.       It was further stated that allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 31.03.2011 for Plot No.HPE-R2-F108 alongiwth the schedule of payment. It was further stated that the development of the said project is in full swing and the Opposite Parties have also received the partial completion certificate dated 10.09.2014, on the basis whereof, the allotment are being issued to the allottees. It was denied that the Opposite Parties failed to develop the site and have not handed over possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties are in the process of handing over possession alongwith registration of the conveyance deed for various plots situated at Hyde Park Estate. It was further stated that as per Clause 5 of the application for allotment, it was agreed by the  applicant that all the rights including the ownership thereof of lands, facilities and amenities outside the said plot shall vest solely with the Company and the Company shall have the sole and absolute authority to deal in any manner with such lands, amenities and facilities.

11.       It was further stated that despite several demand letters and notice, the complainant failed to make the payment of the due 9^th installment. It was further stated that the Plot Buyer’s Agreement, in duplicate, was to be returned by the complainant, after duly signing the same, within 30 days from 24.11.2011. It was further stated that since the complainant also failed to provide copies of Plot Buyer’s Agreement alongwith the duly signed stamp papers, therefore, the Opposite Parties, as per the terms and conditions forming part of the application for allotment, cannot handover possession of the plot, in question, without receiving the payment of the 9^th installment, the signed copies of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement and signed stamp papers.  It was further stated that it was clarified in Clause 6 of the application for allotment that the Company has not promised or given any impression that the applicant shall have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever in any lands, clubs, shop, buildings etc. falling outside the said plot. It was denied that any assurance was given by the authorized representative of the Opposite Parties that the facilities of ATM, vegetable and grocery store, shops, club house, restaurant etc. were to be provided at the time of offering possession of the plot, in question.

12.       It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have received the partial completion certificate from GMADA on 10.09.2014 and on the basis whereof, they have been offering possession to various allottees. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had also obtained the environmental clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Punjab on 27.06.2012 and also received NOCs from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. It was further stated that the water supply and sewerage facilities have already been provided at Plot No.R-2F-108 and the plot provisionally allotted to the complainant is situated on the main road which is 80 feet wide. It was further stated that an electricity box for energy meter is also provided for the said plot. It was further stated that hence, the facilities of water supply, sewerage, electricity and developed roads are provided around the plot provisionally allotted 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 unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

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

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

15.       The complainant filed replication, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated the same, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.

16.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully as also the written arguments of the Opposite Parties. 

17.       It is evident that the complainant, applied for the allotment of a residential plot, in the project of the Opposite Parties vide application dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure R-1 colly.) and Plot No.HPE-R2-F108 was allotted to him vide letter dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure C-1). The Opposite Parties admitted in Para 13 of their written statement that the complainant paid an amount Rs.88,08,669/- to the Opposite Parties up-till 17.09.2012, as against the total price of the plot, in question, as Rs.1,05,60,207.03Ps. Further as per Clause 15 of the terms and conditions forming part of the application for allotment (Annexure R-1 colly.), the possession of the plot, in question, was to be offered within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or within any extended period or periods.

18.       The first objection of the Opposite Parties that  the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act is not on sound footing. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the complainant booked/purchased the plot, in question, for carrying on some commercial activity or he booked/purchased more than one plot in their same project. The Plot, in question, is a residential plot, and the complainant, in Para 2 of the complaint has submitted that he applied for allotment of a residential plot for his use and occupation. As such, this objection being devoid of merit, is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

19.       The next objection, raised by the Opposite Parties, is regarding the existence of arbitration No.33 in the application for allotment (Annexure R-1 colly.). With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Act is made, which reads as under;

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

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

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of an arbitration clause, in the document, aforesaid, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385  and  C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. In this view of the matter, this objection of the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

20.       When the case was fixed for final arguments, the Opposite Parties, moved an application for amendment of the written statement filed by them to the effect that, inadvertently, they (Opposite Parties), at the time of filing their written statement, did not take the preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by the pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act. It was further stated that in the prayer clause, the complainant has prayed for refund of the total principal amount of Rs.88,08,669/- alongwith interest  @18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment besides Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost. It was further stated that the total amount claimed by the complainant exceeds Rs.1 Crore and, therefore, the complaint was barred by Section 17 of the Act being not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of  this Commission.

21.       However, on the date of final hearing, the Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant did not wish to file any reply to the application aforesaid.

22.       It is settled principle of law that the each and every preliminary objection goes to the root of the case and, as such, it is obligatory on the part of the Consumer Fora, to decide the preliminary objections first before dwelling to the merits of the case. In this view of the matter, the application for amendment of the written statement is allowed and the written statement is amended to the extent of preliminary objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, to entertain and decide the complaint.

23.       The application is, disposed of accordingly.

24.       Now coming to the objection aforesaid of the Opposite Parties that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the complainant has sought refund of the total principal amount of Rs.88,08,669/- @18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment besides Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost, total whereof exceeds the outer pecuniary limit of Rs.1 Crore of the State Commission, it may be stated here that in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the facts were that the complainant filed a consumer complaint, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, claiming an amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, with interest @18% per annum, on this amount, from the date of claim, till realization. It also claimed suitable damages, on account of loss caused to it. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide order dated 08.08.2002, disposed of the complaint, with liberty reserved to the complainant, to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that if interest @18% P.A. was allowed, on the amount of Rs.18,33,000/-it (amount) will exceed Rs.20 lakhs (at that time the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upto Rs.20 lacs), for which it had no pecuniary Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant/ appellant filed the aforesaid appeal. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid appeal, held as under:-

“Bare reading of the prayer made would show that the interest claimed by appellant pertains to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future. Rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of State Commission and the stage for exercise of such a discretion would be the time when the complaint is finally disposed of. Thus, the State Commission had acted erroneously in adding to the amount of Rs. 18,33,000/- the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till date of filing of complaint for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction before reaching the said stage. Order under appeal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint is now to be dealt with by the District Forum instead of State Commission.

Accordingly, while accepting appeal, the order dated 8.8.2002 is set aside. On complaint being returned by the State Commission, the appellant is permitted to file it before the appropriate District Forum for being decided on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs”.

25.       The observations made, in the aforesaid case, are fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In the instant complaint, interest @18% P.A., claimed by the complainant, in the manner, referred to above, is not required to be added, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, the sum total of the reliefs claimed by the complainant, excluding the interest part, does not exceed the maximum pecuniary limit of Rs.1 Crore of this Commission. In this view of the matter, this objection of the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

26.          The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was any deficiency attributable to the Opposite Parties in handing over possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant. As per Clause 15 of the terms and conditions forming part of the application for allotment (Annexure R-1 colly.), the possession of the plot, in question, was to be offered within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or within any extended period or periods. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that though the unit was allotted to the complainant on 31.3.2011 but despite the complainant’s making payment in the sum of Rs.40 Lacs, the Opposite Parties issued the Plot Buyer’s Agreement only vide letter dated 24.11.2011. It was further submitted that there was, thus, undue delay of eight months in sending the Plot Buyer’s Agreement. Admittedly, the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 24.11.2011 as is evident from Annexure C-4 attached with the complaint by the complainant himself. It is also evident from Annexure C-5, which is letter dated 28.12.2011 that the Opposite Parties sent two stamp papers each for Rs.1,000/- for signatures of the complainant. The operative part of letter dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure C-5) reads as under:-

“ In pursuance to the above captioned subject and the agreement set duly signed by you enclosed herewith are the two stamp papers each for Rs.1000/ for the signature of the applicants as mentioned in the application form

The signed stamp paper should be deposited at the below mentioned address at the earliest so as to be able to execute the agreement and have the customer copy dispatched…”

27.       Clearly, the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was signed by the complainant, as is evident from the contents of letter dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure C-5) extracted above, in December 2011. The complainant in Para 6 of the complaint has admitted that he had signed the stamp papers and delivered at the helpdesk of the Opposite Partiers but he was not given acknowledgment.   In case the complainant did not receive Plot Buyer’s Agreement, he ought to have requested the Opposite Parties for the same. Similarly, if the Opposite Parties did not receive the same (Plot Buyer’s Agreement), they ought not to have slept for around 4 years. On the basis of evidence which has come on record viz. Annexure C-5, it is assumed, in the circumstances aforesaid, that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was signed in December 2011. The Opposite Parties were, therefore, required to handover possession of the plot, in question by December 2013. There is already delay of around one year eight months from the due date of possession viz. December 2013. As is evident from letter dated 22.2.2013 (Annexure C-7), the complainant pointed out the slow pace of development which was to the extent of 30% to the Opposite Parties. Again vide letter dated 17.2.2014 (Annexure C-8), the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to handover possession of the plot, in question alongwith all amenities. These letters were sent by the complainant through registered post, as is evident from the copy of postal receipts appended thereon. The complainant ultimately vide legal notice dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure C-9) requested the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid by him alongwith interest. The Opposite Parties, in Para 16, on merits of their written statement, stated that construction of the project was in full swing and project was near completion but did not give any firm date by which possession shall be offered.

28.         So far as the contention of the complainant that neither the Opposite Parties received the completion certificate nor they obtained the consent letters from the Punjab Pollution Control Board till date nor the requisite clearance from the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has been issued to them till date is concerned, it may be stated here that the Opposite Parties have placed, on record, letter dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure R-3 colly.) vide which they were granted partial completion certificate in respect  of  Mega  Residential  Project  DLF Hyde Park

 

Estate (198.34 Acre) in Mullanpur (New Chandigarh). It is apparent from the opening para of this letter  that this letter was issued in reference to the Opposite Parties’ application dated 10.09.2014. Thus, it is clear that the Opposite Parties had not applied for completion certificate till December, 2013, the proposed time for offering possession of the plot, in question. Even this partial completion certificate is of no help to the Opposite Parties, when in Para 16 of their written statement, Opposite Parties have stated that project was near completion meaning thereby that the same (project) was yet to be completed. It is also apparent from letter dated 1.7.2014 (at page 266) that with reference to representation dated 22.05.2014 of the Opposite Parties, feasibility clearance of M/s DLF Universal Ld. For 215.97     Acres residential colony namely Hyde Park         Estate at Mullanpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, the project     in question, under DS Category (COS 8.1)            under Single Point Scheme for a load of 9852.3 KW/10947 KVA CD at 66 KV supply, was given on 1.7.2014.   Most importantly, the Opposite Parties have annexed a copy of reply to the legal notice, dated 17.3.2015 (at page 243), allegedly sent to the complainant through registered post. Clearly, in Para 4 of their reply to the legal notice, the Opposite Parties, admitted that “….The construction of the project is in full swing and the project is               near completion.”. Since the Opposite Parties  have not  handed  over  possession  of the plot, in question,

 

within two years period from the date of execution of the Agreement and thereafter despite lapse of around 20 months and still the Opposite Parties have not committed any specific date for handing over possession, they (Opposite Parties) are not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice by making wrong commitments and false promises that possession shall be handed over within a period of two years. The complainant had made payments in the sum of Rs.88,08,669/- to the Opposite Parties, which was undoubtedly his hard earned money. When the Opposite Parties themselves failed to deliver possession to the complainant within the stipulated period or till date, they were liable to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant with interest. The complainant is, thus, entitled to refund of Rs.88,08,669/- with interest @9% per annum. By not refunding this amount, the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service.

29.         The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to any compensation or not. The complainant deposited his hard earned money, in the hope that he will have a house to live in. Admittedly, possession of the plot, in question, has not been delivered by the Opposite Parties till date. On account of non-delivery of possession of the plot, in question, by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, complete in all respects, within the stipulated period or even till the filing of the complaint, and by not refunding the amount to him (complainant), the complainant had certainly suffered physical harassment and mental agony at the hands of the Opposite Parties, for which, he needs to be suitably compensated. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, if granted,  would be just and adequate, to meet the ends of justice.           

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

31.          For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are liable and directed in the following manner:-

(i)    To refund the amount of Rs.88,08,669/-to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)   To pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-  (Rupees Two Lac only), to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.

(iv)  In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest @12% per annum, instead of 9% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of default till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

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

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

Pronounced

August 21, 2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad

 

 

 

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Complaint Case No.121 of 2015)

Sh. Tarun Aggarwal

Vs.

DLF Universal Limited and Another

 

Argued by:

Sh. Gaurav Chopra, Advocates for the complainant.

Sh. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

Dated the 21^st day of August 2015

ORDER

            On  17.08.2015, the Opposite Parties had moved an application, for placing on record, two demand letters dated 19.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 by way of additional evidence on the ground, that the same are essential for the just decision of the complaint.

2.         On 18.08.2015, the Counsel for the complainant stated at bar that the complainant did not want to file any reply to the application aforesaid.

3.         Arguments on the application aforesaid were heard.

4.         It may be stated here, that the documents, sought to be placed, on record, i.e. demand letters dated 19.12.2012 and 31.12.2012, by way of additional evidence, were very much, in possession of the Opposite Parties, when they were leading their evidence. In case, at this stage, the application for placing, on record, the documents, aforesaid, by way of additional evidence, is allowed, that will delay the disposal of the complaint, thereby defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 13 (3A), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulating the specific time, for the disposal of Consumer Disputes. Thus, there is no justification, whatsoever, to allow the application, for placing, on record, the aforesaid documents, by way of additional evidence, at this stage. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

5.          Arguments in the main complaint, , already heard.

6.         Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this complaint has been partly accepted, with costs, as per the directions given in the main order.

7.         Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER

Sd/-   (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Ad