Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed separate version  in all cases .  All the averments contained in all the versions are same and are as follows.

It is true that the opposite party is engaged in the construction  of apartments and  is one of the oldest business groups in Kottayam  through 5 generations of  credible practice. The opposite party  always using   only the branded first grade raw materials  directly purchased from the factory and  this guarantees  efficient quality control management. The after sale service should give  utmost satisfaction to the customers  and the  quality of the construction can be scrutinized at site by each customer even at all the stages of construction. There was no pressure  or compulsion made by the opposite party for purchasing the apartments by anybody. The complainant purchased the apartment after fully convincing about the workmanship, materials  and after sales services of the opposite party. The construction of the apartment was done as mentioned in the agreement  at the cost and request of the complainant. The total construction cost for the apartment is Rs. 1350/Sq as a launching offer and the  complainant very well knew  that the said cost of the apartment is the lowest price for an apartment  in such an important locality with such an ambience and paraphernalia. Therefore payment schedule was fixed  and stated in the two agreements along with other charges mentioned therein. All the customers/occupants are very much satisfied with the terms of the agreement with  the specifications mentioned in the agreement. But some of the customers failed to pay the installments in the correct schedules as stated in the agreement or even at the time of the first occupancy certificate issued to the complainant.

        The opposite party started the construction of the apartment with building permit no. PW7/BA/18506-07 dated 6-10-2007 along with No objection Certificate from pollution control board. The first occupancy certificate received vide no. PW7/BA/18506-07 dated 23-5-2009. Thereafter by mistake the government authorities issued an order for cancellation of the above occupancy certificate and they  served the order dated 28-5-2009 on    3-6-2009. It was mistakenly ordered that the subsequent changes in the building rules will affect the  previous building permits  obtained prior to the amendment. Hence the entire further construction works were stopped due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite party. Thereafter opposite party approached the   tribunal  and obtained  an order in FA no. 833/2009 dated 27-7-2009 and the final order on 19-8-2009 in appeal no. 618 /2009. The owner of the property issued a detailed explanation on 7-11-2009  to the municipality against the wrong order served for restraining the construction work. Therefore the municipality issued  notices on 19-10-2009 along with the provisional occupancy proceedings dated 9-4-2010. The tribunal and Hon’ble high court also passed orders in favour of the opposite party on 18-2-2010 and 25-3-2010 respectively.

Accordingly the further construction  of  apartments are completed by the opposite party and water connection and electric connection for all occupants  were obtained on 14-6-2010 and 15-6-2010. These facts are known to the complainant since they are also parties in the previous proceedings pending before different courts. There is no violation of construction in Building rule and completed construction in accordance with the approved  plan. Hence no delay caused due to any latches or act committed by the opposite party. The apartments handed over to the complainant even before getting consideration and they were never charged with electricity and water charges during  the time they were occupied the apartment  and the said amount paid  by the opposite party in commercial tariff.

It is further averred in the version that in the detailed reply sent to the complainant it was explained by the opposite party about the services  rendered to them and thereafter 7 persons withdrew their complaint out of the 12 persons issued notice and the treasurer of the owners association executed an affidavit stating the  whole true facts. The opposite party handed over all the title deeds and other relevant documents of each apartment to the respective owners except 4 and was acknowledged by the official representatives of the apartment owners. As per clause 19 of the construction agreement it is made clear that an amount of Rs.10,000/- each kept with opposite party as a deposit to meet on going expenses as the maintenance, management , watchman expenses, sweeper , water  and charges for common use. The said sum shall not carry interest and will remain with the opposite party up to the formation of the  association. The opposite party will have the authority to deduct the dues if any from the customer’s on account  of maintenance. The non formation of association is only due to the  above mentioned reasons and from evading   the   responsibility by the owners association. It is further averred in the version that all the customers are bound to pay the common expenses for the entire two years ie. an additional amount of Rs. 8000/- per apartment. The opposite party has the right to construct additional structures over the roof and over the strip of vacant land  around the building within the  norms of municipality. No specified area provided in the agreement for landscape garden , free space  and inter com connection, cable connection in each apartment lift and security room. There is no leak on the entrance portion and the opposite party will take care of any construction defect, either quality wise or workmanship. The opposite party paved good quality tiles in the exterior portion and used interlock paving. The opposite party used hard wood for doors and shutters,   and good quality hand rail materials and  plumping materials as per the specifications mentioned in the agreement and the overhead tank’s inner floor and side wall is covered properly on the top for preventing contaminations. There is no specific rule for providing minimum distance for manhole and the manhole is constructed in a safer distance from the well and well built and protected from leakage. The alleged trickling of waste water is not due to leakage but only due to the blockage of pipes due to deposit of foreign particles especially toilet napkins by the customers.  There is no mistake in water treatment plant  and the fire fighting system; the owners association will take care, if any, mistake occurred during the time of its warranty. The amount collected as cable and electricity charges is purely on the basis of the concluded contract and it is binding  to the parties in the agreement. There are sufficient  car parking facilities provided in the apartment   and nobody other than the 5 complainants  had any grievances  for the same.

           The complainants never made  prompt payments  as scheduled in the agreements. Even before getting the  scheduled payments the opposite party not only permitted them to occupy but also executed sale deeds in their favour. Therefore the complainants failed to perform their  part of the contract and came before this commission  with unclean hands. It is the duty of the  association  of owners to manage the day to day affairs of the apartment and the opposite party is not in a position to follow the requirements of customers after the date of occupation / formation of association. There is no deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice   from the side of the opposite party.

      All the complainants filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Our predecessor vide order in IA 155 of 2012 allowed joint  trial by considering cc 295of 2011 as leading case.   T.M. Binoy who is the complainant in CC 295 of 2011was examined as Pw1 and exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. George Scaria is examined as Pw2. Shajilal who is the first Expert Commissioner  examined as Pw3 and /Exhibit C1 commission report  marked through him. DW1 and Dw2 were examined from the side of the opposite party  and  exhibits B1 to B25 were marked. Exhibit B1  is marked through the  Pw1. X1 commission report marked through Dw2.

On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs?

For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point number 1 and 2 together

Point No.1 and 2

       There is no dispute that the complainant purchased an apartment  in the  Wexco Olive  Yard Luxury Apartments at Puthanagady,  Kottayam. The total construction cost for the apartment is Rs. 1350/Sq. Exhibit A3 and B24 is same and the agreement  executed between the Pw1 and opposite party for the  construction of apartment. On perusal of exhibit A3 and B24 we can see that the opposite party agreed to   finish the construction work on or before                            20-9-2007 and  to hand over the possession of the building  within 90 days  after completion of the  apartment. Admittedly the possession was handed over to the complainants in the month of March 2011. It is contended by the opposite party that the delay caused in delivery of possession was not due to unavoidable circumstances.  According to the opposite party though the   Exhibit B4 first occupancy certificate received vide no. PW7/BA/18506-07 dated 23-5-2009, thereafter by mistake the government authorities issued  an order for cancellation of the above occupancy certificate and  served the order dated 28-5-2009 on 3-6-2009. Exhibit B5 is the photocopy of the notice    issued  by  the secretary , local self government department directing    the  Secretary, Kottayam Municipality to take action  on the basis of  the report filed by the town planner, Kottayam. In pursuance of Exhibit B5  Secretary, Kottayam municipality issued Exhibit B5(a) order by which they revoked  the exhibit B4 occupancy certificate.   It is submitted that then the opposite party was constrained  to  took the matter  before the   tribunal  and obtained  a exhibit B7 final order on 19-8-2009 in appeal no. 618 /2009 by which the tribunal set aside the exhibit B5(a) order. Thereafter municipality has issued Exhibit B8 notice to  the land owner  for which he submitted B9 reply. The tribunal and Hon’ble high court also passed  Exhibit B10  and B11 orders in favour of the opposite party on 18-2-2010 and 25-3-2010 respectively. In pursuance of exhibit B10 and 11 the municipality issued  Exhibit B12  provisional occupancy certificate  on 9-4-2010. It is contended by the  opposite party that  the further construction  of  apartments are completed by the opposite party and water connection and electric connection for all occupants  were obtained on 14-6-2010 and 15-6-2010. On perusal of exhibit A3 and B24  agreement we can see that   the opposite party undertakes   that the land owners  got building permit on 9-10-2006. On perusal of exhibits B5  we can see that   it was issued in pursuance of a report  filed by the town planner stating that  there was a violation from the approved plan  and thereby opposite party  has committed the violation of the  building rules. On perusal of  exhibit B10 and B11  we cannot see  any finding either by the tribunal or  Hon’ble high court that  there was no violation  of building rules which was prevailed at the time of the issuance of the  occupancy certificate. Moreover it is pertinent to note that there was no finding on Exhibit B10 or B11 that the  Exhibit B5  and B5(a) were issued under the provisions of the subsequent amendments in the Kerala Municipal building  rules and the same   was illegal. However   it was observed by the Hon’ble high court that  numbering of  the building  and the issuance of occupancy certificate will be subject  to the outcome  of any fresh proceeding , which  the municipality may initiate in pursuance to exhibit B10 order of the tribunal. On perusal of exhibit B5 we can see that the town planner has pointed out that the opposite party has completed   construction of multistoried building by committing several deviations from the approved plan and by violating the provisions of the existing building rule. It is pertinent to note that though the  provisional  building permit was issued on 9-4-2010 the opposite party handed over the possession of the building to the complainant only  in the month of March 2011. Thus we are of the opinion that the delay caused in construction  of apartments and handing over the same to complainant  was not  due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite party.

 Another allegation in the complaint is that there  are several defects in the building . C1 which is the first commission report filed by the pw3  and X1  which is the   report filed by the second commissioner who is appointed as an expert Commissioner at the instance of the opposite party proves  that there  is a leak on the entrance portion  from the toilet  of an apartment  in the first floor and the waste water is dripping from the said portion. Dw2 would depose that the same could be rectified only by re-plastering the floor of the said toilet. X1 proves that due to the lack of sunshades in the building some of the outer walls are exposed to the direct weather conditions. It is reported in X1 that the same defect can be cured by providing additional sunshades. It is further reported in X1 that some of the pipes provided on the terrace portion were exposed to direct sun and some of the fittings such as controlled valves are damaged due to direct expose to the extreme weather conditions. It is further reported that it can be rectified by using high quality pipes and fittings. Dw2 further deposed that the KSEB authorities ban the two spaces which are provided in front of the electrical rooms and transformer. Dw2 further deposed before this commission that all these defects are due to the deficiency in construction. Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service   due to the defective construction of the apartment.

    According to the opposite parties facilities like  play ground, indoor game, association hall, club house  , landscape garden, gymnasium etc , which  are printed in exhibit  A4  brochure is  not  provided in the agreement. Dw1 deposed before the commission that they have completed the construction of  apartment complex  as per the specification which were annexed to exhibit A3 agreement. On perusal of exhibit A3 and B 24 agreement we cannot see   any terms and conditions therein with regard to the common facilities. However in   clause 24 (d) of exhibit A3 and B24 it is stated that the maintenance of landscape garden, plantations and related fixtures are the duty of the association of the flat owners. Thus  even though there was no specific  clause for the construction of landscape garden,   it can be inferred from the clause 24(d) of Exhibit A3  that the opposite party undertakes to provide a landscape garden for the apartment complex.  In exhibit X1  it is reported that though facilities like  play ground, indoor game, association hall, club house,   landscape garden, gymnasium etc were not specified in Exhibit A3 and B24  ,but one hall has been provided  at the terrace floor. In C1 it is reported that facilities like play ground, indoor game, association hall, club house, landscape garden etc could not be located by the expert commissioner in the apartment complex. On perusal of Exhibit A4 brochure we can see that in the second  page  there was a picture visualization of the  apartment complex   and it is printed   therein as capsule lift, children’s play area , landscaped garden, 24  hours security, club house, fitness centre, indoor game.  On seeing that even a common man might have been under the impression that the said apartment complex would  have the aforesaid  facilities. During the cross examination Dw1 would depose that the car parking facility is provided in the   space which was  shown as landscape garden in A4  brochure. Dw1 deposed that exhibit A4 is only intended  for demonstration purpose.                        He further deposed that the opposite party used Exhibit A4 for canvasing their prospective customers including the complainants to purchase the apartment.

Section 2(1)(r) of the consumer protection act 1986 defines  “unfair trade practice”  as a trade practice  which, for the purpose of the  promoting the sale, use  or supply  of any goods  of for the  provision of any  service, adopts any unfair trade method or unfair  or deceptive  practice including any of the following practices, namely-

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,-

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model,

(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard quality or grade,

(iii)**************

 Here in case on hand Dw1 admitted that they have published the A4 brochure to canvas the customers and they are not intended to provide the facilities which were  shown in A4  to their customers. Thus we are of the opinion that  opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice  by not providing common facilities to the complainants   which were published  and represented  thorough exhibit A4.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that  out of the 12 the flat owners  who issued Exhibit A1 lawyers notice, only 5  apartments owners  filed the complaint. It is argued by the opposite parties that the common allegation in Exhibit a1 notice and complaints are regarding the  amount collected by  the opposite parties   as security deposit, electricity and other charges from 51 persons   and  value of  car parking  from 7 persons.  According to the opposite parties hence the matter in issue is related to all the complaints which affect numerous persons.  Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that  the claims  of damages  or compensation is on behalf of  persons  and without filing permission petition  under  section 12(1)(c) of the consumer protection act is barred  and unsustainable. Counsel for the opposite parties relied on the decision of supreme Court reported in 2020 KHC 5411(SC). In that  case  the   one complaint was instituted by 26 flat owners, against the   builder. Here the five separate complaints  were filed by separate  complainants  and they are tried jointly by virtue of the order passes by our predecessor . Thus we are of the  opinion that  the contention of the opposite parties in this regard is not sustainable.    

It is further contended that the special damages   for getting compensation and for mental agony were not separately pleaded or proved by the complainants. In Godfray Philips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar (2008) KHC 4538 SC Hon’ble supreme court has held that when serious allegation which was required to be established was not even specifically pleaded when nothing specific was indicated in the complaint, the commission should not have been given the direction on pure surmises. On going through the aforesaid decision it can be seen that in the case referred spura there was no prayer for compensation and no allegation that the complainant had suffered any loss.  Here in all complaints in the prayer portion the first relief is that “allow the complainant to realize an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and for  the mental agony caused to the  complainant due to the act of the opposite party.” We can see that there is a specific prayer in the complaint for the compensation for mental agony. Thus we are of the opinion that the proposition laid down by the  Hon’ble supreme  court  in above stated decision  has no  relevancy in  case on hand.

  It is further argued that  Pw1 is not representing other complainants and is not competent to submit about the quantum of damages or compensation for other complainants. It is argued that so far as the compensation,  damages and mental agony are  concerned  the party who suffered  such damages must plead  such damages in their complaint  and prove the same  with  reasonable  certainty.

 In support of his case the learned   counsel for the opposite party  relied  on the decision  of hon’ble supreme court in   Fortune Infrastructures (M/s) and another vs  Trevor D’lima and others (2018 )KHC  6198 SC  . The Hon’ble apex court has held that every breach of contract gives rise to an action for damages and such amount of damages must be proved with reasonable certainty. He further relied on the decisions reported in  1963  KHC 631(SC) and  1982 KHC 179 and argued that court  is not bound to award compensation when no legal injury  has resulted.

It is to be noted that in every consumer disputes there will be some sort of breach of contract.  It is also to be born in mind that the consumer disputes are also disputes of civil nature and the remedy or remedies that can be claimed are also civil remedies.  But the pertinent aspect is as to whether the breach of contract has resulted in causing deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.  The definite case of the complainant herein is that due to the breach of contract on the part of the opposite party, the complainants suffered mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss on account of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant have claimed compensation for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It is true that deficiency of service and tortuous acts, are to be distinguished and differentiated.  By distinguishing the case of deficiency of service from the tortuous acts it can be concluded that the case of the complainants is based on deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in executing the work based on A3 and B24 agreements. The mere fact that there occurred breach of contract on the part of the parties to the agreement cannot be taken as a ground to hold that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. No doubt, that the complainants will succeed in getting the reliefs sought for only on establishing the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

      Learned  counsel for the opposite party resisted the complaint  on the ground  that the Pw1 is not competent to submit the quantum of damages or compensation for other complainants.  On going through the complaints we can see that the allegations in all the five complaints are the same. Similarly, though the opposite party filed separate version in all five cases the contentions in all cases are the same. It is pertinent to note that   though all the complainant filed separate proof affidavit during July 2017, the opposite party did not file any petition seeking permission to cross examine other complainants except Pw1.The opposite parties have no case that the  terms and conditions of the agreements which they made with the other complainants are not same as enumerated in Exhibit A3 and B24. It is a settled proposition of law that the procedure which is followed by the Consumer Commission is a summary procedure. It is also the settled proposition of law that the facts which can be proved by documents, no oral testimony is needed. The oral deposition is required to be made to prove the facts which cannot be proved by way of a document. In the present complaint, the contentions of the parties are based on the documents executed between them and therefore to deal with these issues, no oral testimony is relevant.    Therefore we are of the opinion that there will be no chance for causing prejudice   to the opposite party. In Savita Garg v. Director, National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56 para 7 Hon’ble SC observed that:

"... ... ...Therefore, as far as the Commission is concerned, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to a limited extent and not all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings of the National Forum.... ... ..." In para 10 of the said judgment the Court further observed as under:

"The Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide better protection in the interest of the consumers and not to short-circuit the matter or to defeat the claim on technical grounds. ...”

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna and Ors. reported at AIR 2021 SC 437 wherein it has been held as under:

 “If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act. Any defect in construction activity would be denial of comfort and service to a consumer. When possession of property is not delivered within stipulated period the delay so caused is denial of service. Such disputes or claims are not in respect of immoveable property as argued but deficiency in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade. Such deficiencies or omissions are defined in sub-clause (ii) of clause (r) of Section 2 as unfair trade practice”.

A person who applies for allotment of a building site or for a flat constructed by the development authority or enters into an agreement with a builder or a contractor is a potential user and nature of transaction is covered in the expression 'service of any description'. It further indicates that the definition is not exhaustive. The inclusive clause succeeded in widening its scope but 
 not exhausting the services which could be covered in earlier part. So any service except when it is free of charge or under a constraint of personal service is included in it. Since housing activity is a service it was covered in the clause as it stood before 1993 19.4 Clause 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines ―unfair trade practice as follows :-

―2(1)(r) ―unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-                                                                

                                                                            (emphasis supplied)

The said definition is an inclusive one, as held by this Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan,4 wherein this Court speaking through one of us (J. Indu Malhotra) held :-

―6.1 …. The inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service. In Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima [Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] , this Court held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation.”

In Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan And ... vs Dlf Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.  reported in 2020 KHC 6499 wherin the hon’ble  supreme Court has held that

 “In other words, what the developer holds out as a defence is that though there has been a failure on their part to provide the amenities, the flat buyers have the benefit of facilities in the surrounding area which has become urbanized. We cannot agree with this line of submissions. The reply of the developer seeks to explain the failure to construct the facilities on the ground that the “existing population cannot sustain these facilities” – a school, commercial complex and health care facilities. This is a case involving an experienced developer who knew the nature of the representation which was being held out to the flat purchasers. Developers sell dreams to home buyers. Implicit in their representations is that the facilities which will be developed by the developer will provide convenience of living and a certain lifestyle based on the existence of 
those amenities. Having sold the flats, the developer may find it economically unviable to provide the amenities. The flat purchasers cannot be left in the lurch or, as in the present case, be told that the absence of facilities which were to be provided by the developer is compensated by other amenities which are available in the area. The developer must be held accountable to its representation. A flat purchaser who invests in a flat does so on an assessment of its potential. The amenities which the builder has committed to provide impinge on the quality of life for the families of purchasers and the potential for appreciation in the value of the flat. The representation held out by the developer cannot be dismissed as chaff. True, in a situation such as the present it may be difficult for the court to quantify the exact nature of the compensation that should be provided to the flat buyers. The general appreciation in land values results in an increase in the value of the investment made by the buyers. Difficulties in determining the measure of compensation cannot however dilute the liability to pay. A developer who has breached a clear representation which has been made to the buyers of the amenities which will be provided to them should be held accountable to the process of law. To allow the developer to escape their obligation would put a premium on false assurances and representations made to the flat purchasers. Hence, in factoring in the compensation which should be provided to the flat buyers who are concerned in the present batch of appeals, we would necessarily have to bear this issue in mind.”

The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. 

The next question, that falls for consideration, in quantifying the damages/compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant, deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party, the Consumer commissions are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also, at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change, in the attitude of the service provider.  Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule could be laid down, for universal application. While awarding compensation,   we have  to take into account, all the relevant factors and assess compensation, on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation.  It is for the Consumer Forum, to grant compensation to the extent, it finds it reasonable, fair and proper, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, according to the established judicial standards.

Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Charan Singh, Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3138. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant.                               The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensate..on. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case.  The complainants has been in possession of the apartments, since March  2011, and has been living therein, uncomfortably. The Opposite Parties also never refused to execute the sale deed, and get it registered, from the Competent Authority. Though the opposite party submitted that they are ready and willing to rectify  the defects  in the apartment if any, even after the X1 report they did not take any initiative to rectify the  defects which were reported  by expert commissioner in X2 report. The compensation must be commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, and injustice occasioned to the complainant. It should be neither unreasonable and excessive, nor meager.

Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, the injustice occasioned to the complainants, mental agony and hardships caused to them , and the extent of deficiency, in rendering service and unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party, in our considered opinion, the compensation, is required to be Rs 3 lakhs, which would serve the ends of justice.

 On the basis of above  discussed evidence  and decisions we allow this complaint along with CC No. 294 0f 2011,   CC 295 of 2011, CC 296 OF 2011,297 OF 2011 and 298 OF 2011  and pass the following order.

1. We  hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 3 lakhs  to the complainant as compensation for the  mental agony caused due to the deficiency in service from the part  of the opposite party.
2. We herby direct the opposite party to cure the defect of the apartment complex    which is reported by the expert commissioner in  his  X1  report.

 Order shall be complied  within 30 days from the receipt of this  order  failing which the  compensation amount will carry 9%  from 21-11-2011  i.e. the date on which the  complaint filed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21^st day of October, 2021.

                    Sri. Manulal V.S. President       Sd/-

                    Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member           Sd/-

Appendix

Witness from the side of complainants.

Pw1 – Binoy T.M.

Pw2 – George Scaria

Pw3 – Shajilal

Witness from the side of opposite party

Dw1 – Johnson Varghese

Dw2 – Jaison Joseph

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1- Office copy of the lawyers notice dtd.19-07-2011

A2 – Lawyers notice dtd.06-08-11 issued by Adv. P.A. Rabeez

         to Adv. Jayakrishnan R.

A3 – Copy of agreement dtd.28-10-2006

A4 – Brochure

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of receipt dtd.28-03-11

B2 – Copy of Memorandum of Association of Wexco Homes Pvt. Ltd.

B3 – Copy of building permit No.Pw7/BA/185/06-07 dtd.06-10-07 by

         Kottayam Municipality

B4- Copy of Occupancy certificate dtd.23-05-09 by Kottayam Municipal            Council

B5 – Copy of Order No.48842/RA3/2008LSGD by Local Self Govt. (RA)

          Department dtd.25-08-2009

B5(a) – Copy of notice No.PW7/BA/185/06-07 dtd.03-06-09 from Kottayam

           Municipality

B6 – Copy of IA No.833/2009 in Appeal No.618/2009 in the Court of 

          Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram.

B7 – Copy of judgment in Appeal No.618/2009 dtd.19-08-2009 in the Court of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram

B8 – Copy of notice dtd.19-10-2009 by Secretary, Kottayam Municipality.

B9 –Copy of letter dtd.07-11-09 by M.J. Alexander to Secretary, Kottayam

         Municipality

B10 -Copy of judgment in Appeal No.983/2009 dtd.18-02-2010 in the Court of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram

B11- Copy of judgment in W.P. (C) No.7778 of 2010(V) dtd.25-03-10 in the High Court of Kerala.

B12- Copy of Provisional occupancy certificate dtd.09-04-2010

B13- Copy of certificate by Kottayam Municipality for the approval of water connection.

B14 - Copy of certificate by Kottayam Municipality for the approval of electric connection.

B15 – Copy of Non objection certificate dtd.06-07-2007

B16  - Copy of terms and conditions of Kerala State Pollution Control Board,.

B17 series – Copies of list of documents dtd.23-03-2011 by opposite party

            (36nos.)

B18 – Copy of agreement

B19 – Copy of notice dtd.26-05-2010

B20 – Copies of receipt issued by Kottayam Municipality

B21 – Copy of the minutes of the meeting of Olive Yard dtd.29-01-2011

B22 – Copy of Form II (Return under sub-sections (1) or (3) of Section 7 or Section 8

B23 –Copy of letter dtd.30-06-2010 by M.J. Alexander to the Secretary, Municipality, Kottayam

B24 – Copy of common expenses of one year of Wexco Olive Yard

B25 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.06-08-2011

B26 – Board resolution

Commission report

C1 – inspection report submitted by Shajilal C.E.

X1 – Report submitted by Er.Jaison Joseph

                                                                                                    By Order

j/7cs                                                                                    Senior Superintendent