Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/59/2023

AMIT GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AMBIKA REALCON DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	59 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	17.07.2023
Date of Decision	:	25.01.2024

1. Amit Goyal son of Sh. Chaman Lal, aged about 37 years, resident of House No. 2142/D, Block-9, Sector 63, Chandigarh.
2. Pooja Goyal wife of Sh. Amit Goyal aged about 38 years, resident of House No. 2142/D, Block-9, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Private Limited, Corporate Office: SCO 18-19, 1st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009 through its Director-Sh. Ritesh Sehgal.
2. M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Private Limited, Regd. Office: Building No. 251, Glatt Building, 2nd Floor, Behind Modi Floor Mill, Okhla, Phase- III, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.
3. M/s Ambika Realcon Developers Private Limited, Sales Office: LA Parisian, Sector 66 Beta, IT City, Mohali-140307 through its Sales Manager.

…..Opposite parties

 

BEFORE:	JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Present:-	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainants alongwith complainant no.1 in person. Sh.Manpreet Singh Longia, Advocate for the opposite   parties.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of consumer complaint:-

                   It is the case of the complainants that in order to have a residential flat, they purchased flat bearing no.LP/TRIOMPHE/A/103, measuring 2150 square feet, Tower No.9 (in short the unit), in the project of the opposite parties named “LA PARISIAN”, located at Sector 66, Beta, IT City, Mohali. The said unit was allotted vide letter dated 13.07.2021, Annexure C-3. Total sale consideration of the said unit was fixed at Rs.84,76,750/- including maintenance security, Interest Bearing Maintenance Security (IBMS), club cost, power backup, one covered car parking, EED & FFE and PLC, Taxes/GST.  Flat buyers’ agreement, Annexure C-4 was executed between the parties on 13.07.2021 and as per clause 7.1 thereof, the opposite parties committed to deliver possession of the unit in question on or before 30.09.2022. To make payment towards the unit in question, the complainants raised housing loan from Bank of Maharashtra, for which Tripartite Agreement dated 02.08.2021, Annexure C-6 was executed between the parties. As per demands raised by the opposite parties the complainants paid total amount of Rs.78,68,864/- for the period from 03.08.2021  to 08.02.2023, yet possession of the unit in question was not offered and delivered to the complainants by the opposite parties for want of development and construction activities. 

2.           It has been stated by the complainants that visits to the project site revealed that the opposite parties were not constructing the units with Mivan Technology/RCC as committed vide brochure Annexure C-1 and on the other hand bricks were used for constructing boundaries and walls of the tower and unit in question, which fact was brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties by way of sending numerous emails but to  no avail. Various discrepancies noted in the construction and unit were also brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties but to no avail.  Hence this complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking following relief:-

 

Relief sought by the complainants:-

 

1.  “….To handover the possession of the Flat Bearing No. LP/TRIOMPHE/A/103 having Super Area/Carpet Area approximately 2150 sq. ft./1402 sq. ft. of "TRIOMPHE/A" (Tower-9) in "LA PARISIAN" at Sec 66, Beta, IT City, Mohali along with completion and occupation certificates.
2. To pay interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the due date of possession i.e. 30.09.2022 till the actual date of possession.
3. To construct the flat as per MIVAN TECHNOLOGY/RCC (Reinforced concrete Cement) as committed and in case they failed to construct the same then pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for not using MIVAN TECHNOLOGY in constructing the abovesaid flat.
4. To Pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency and suffering of pain and mental harassment.
5. To pay Rs.75,000/- as litigation charges.
6. Any other order which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit be also passed in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties…”   

 

 

Written version of the opposite parties:-

3.           The claim of the complainants has been contested by the opposite parties by way of filing written version wherein number of objections were taken as under:-

 

1. that the complainants have concealed material facts from this Commission and have approached with unclean hands;
2. that the complainants being investors did not fall within the definition of consumer;
3. that in the face of  arbitration clause contained in the agreement to settle all the dispute arising out of the unit in question through arbitration, this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint;
4. that this complaint is also not maintainable before this Commission as the dispute relates to real estate, which can be raised before Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) as agreed by way of execution of agreement;
5. that complaint is bad for misjoinder of bank from whom the complainants have availed housing loan, as necessary party;
6. that at the time of purchase of the unit in question, construction had already taken  place upto second floor slab till 25.03.2021;
7. that the  complainants have also concealed the material fact that they have approached the opposite parties for transfer of initially booked unit no.A-802 to A-103 vide letter dated 12.05.2021, Annexure R-1/1;
8. that the opposite parties had committed to construct earthquake resistant reinforced cement concrete framed structure of the tower in question as mentioned in the brochure, strictly as per Indian Building Code and the safety and stability of the structure of the tower in question has been verified by the Structural Engineer vide his report Annexure R-1/7;
9. that construction of Mivan Technology at the project site was never mentioned in the brochure or agreement;
10. that cause of action if any accrued to the complainants 12.05.2021 and now this complaint having been filed in the year 2023 is barred by limitation;
11. that although as per Clause 7.1 of the agreement, possession of the unit in question was to be delivered on 30.09.2022, yet, it was delayed because the opposite parties suffered force majeure circumstances due to COVID-19;
12. that the Competent Authority vide circular dated 28.10.2020, Annexure R-1/5, granted extension of period of 6 months  for ongoing project, where the completion date was due on or before 15.03.2020 and as such the said period of 6 months was to be added in the period of delivery of possession of the unit in question to the complainants;
13. that the complainants were defaulters in making payment, therefore the date of possession of the unit in question needs to be extended accordingly.

 

4.           On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case  regarding purchase of the unit in question, it has been stated that opposite party no.1 is in the process of completing the entire project in three phases and as far as Tower No.9 is concerned, it is in phase-1 and the same is proposed/expected to be completed on or before 31.12.2023. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied being wrong.

 

Rejoinder filed by the complainants:-

5.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those contained in the written replies of the opposite parties.

 

Evidence led by the parties:

6.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case and also filed written arguments/submissions.  

 

Written arguments:-

7.           On 14.11.2023, counsel for the complainants  submitted that his complaint may be treated as his written arguments. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties filed written submissions wherein while reiterating the contentions raised in the written reply, it has been further added that possession of the unit in question could not be delivered as the Competent Authorities have failed to issue occupation certificate, despite the fact that the same had been applied vide application dated 28.10.2023, after issuance of partial completion certificate dated 25.10.2023.
8.           We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments/submissions filed by parties concerned, very carefully.

 

Observations/findings of this Commission:-

 

Complainants are consumers and not investors:-

9.           First coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties that the complainants are investors and as such they are not consumers , it may be stated here that since this objection is not supported by any documentary evidence, as such the onus shifts to the opposite parties to establish that the complainants have purchased the unit in question to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of units/plots’ as was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31, but since the opposite parties failed to discharge their onus, hence we hold that the complainants are consumers as defined under the Act, 2019. The mere fact that the complainants are residing in a house at Sector 63, Chandigarh is not a ground to shove them out of the purview of the consumer, especially, when the present unit has been purchased by them to fulfill the needs of their growing family. In this view of the matter, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.

 

Objection regarding Arbitration:-

10.           The next question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, in the face of existence of Arbitration clause in the agreement, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred, as has been contended by opposite parties?  It may be stated here that this issue has already been set at rest by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case titled as  Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the buyer and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 and  Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, also stood dismissed vide orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018 respectively. As such, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.

 

RERA not a bar to file consumer complaint:-

11.           An objection was also raised by counsel for  the opposite parties to the effect that in the face of valid agreement whereby the parties have agreed that any dispute arising out of the unit in question will be resolved under the provisions of RERA, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred to entertain this complaint and the complainants can avail remedy under the provisions of RERA only. It may be stated here that this objection does not merit acceptance, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and another, decided on 02.11.2020, wherein it was held that the provisions of RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any consumer complaint. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-

“…….24. It is, therefore, required to be considered whether the remedy so provided under the RERA Act to an allottee is the only and exclusive modality to raise a grievance and whether the provisions of the RERA Act bar consideration of the grievance of an allottee by other fora.

 

25. Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, while in terms of Section 89, the provisions of the RERA Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. 26. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an allottee described in category (B) stated in paragraph 22 hereinabove, would stand barred from invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, as regards the allottees who can be called “consumers” within the meaning of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the provisions of the CP Act; and b) whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the RERA Act.

 

• 27. In Malay Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee , it was held by this Court:- “The proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court. *(See Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking *Corpn . On the strength of the law so declared, Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint…”

 

This view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019, Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Abhishek Khanna & Others, decided on 11.01.2021. As such, objection taken by the opposite parties in this regard stands rejected.

 

Possession not delivered by the promised date:-

12.           It has been fairly admitted by the opposite parties in their written version that possession of the unit has not been delivered by the promised date. During pendency of this complaint, counsel for the opposite parties gave offer to the complainants to take over possession on the ground that the unit in question is ready. However, when on the asking of this Commission, complainant no.1 visited the site to inspect the unit in question, he noted certain discrepancies, yet,  as per complainant no.1, the opposite parties were not interested in giving the possession. Counsel for opposite parties failed to give any justification, as to why the opposite parties were not interested in delivering possession of the unit in question to the complainants. Thus, even during pendency of this complaint also, no efforts were made by the opposite parties to deliver possession of the unit in question to the complainants.  

 

Force majeure circumstances:-

13.           To justify the delay in delivery of possession of the unit in question, counsel for opposite parties took shelter under one Circular dated 28.10.2020, Annexure R-1/5 having been issued by Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority, stating that the extension of 6 months was granted to them for completion of the project, on account of COVID-19, which comes under force majeure circumstances. It may be stated here that we are surprised to note, as to how, the circular dated 28.10.2020 has any concern with the unit in question, which was purchased by the complainants on 31.03.2021 i.e. after more than a year from the date when lockdown was imposed in the country and lifted in April 2020. Thus, when the opposite parties have accepted the application dated 31.03.2021, when there was neither any lockdown in the country due to COVID nor  were there any restrictions in the country qua any construction and development activities nor at that time any circular of any competent Authority was in vogue regarding extension of any period for completion of the project, as such, no  benefit can be availed by the opposite parties under any force majeure circumstances or from the circular dated 28.10.2020.  As such, plea taken by the opposite parties in this regard being devoid of merit stands rejected. It is therefore held that the opposite parties were legally bound to deliver possession of the unit in question by 30.09.2022 as committed vide clause 7.1 of the agreement.

 

Occupation and completion certificates not obtained:-

14.           During pendency of this complaint and also at the time of arguments also, when we put a query to  counsel for the opposite parties and asked him to produce occupation and completion certificates, if obtained by the opposite parties, he was having no valid answer to it. On the other hand, he tried to wriggle out of the situation by stating that though the company has applied for occupation certificate, after obtaining partial completion certificate (copy of which is also not placed on record even), yet, the competent Authority has delayed in issuance of the said occupation certificate. In other words, it has been candidly admitted by the opposite parties that till the date of arguments even, no occupation and final completion certificates have been obtained qua the unit and project in question. However, not even a single evidence has been placed on record by the opposite parties that they have even applied for occupation and final completion certificates or that even if they had applied for the same, they have sent reminders to the competent authorities for issuance of the same. Even otherwise, it is very strange, that on the one hand, the opposite parties are taking a plea in their written statement that they are in process of completing the development in a phase-wise manner and that construction of Tower No.9 is proposed/expected to be completed by 31.12.2023, yet, on the other hand, they have taken a plea in their written arguments that occupation certificate has been applied before the competent Authority vide application dated 28.10.2023. The opposite parties have failed to convince this Commission as to how when development and construction work was still expected to be completed by 31.12.2023, they could apply for occupation certificate in the month of October 2023. Thus, it is held that in the absence of any evidence, mere bald pleas taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, have no significant value in the eyes of law.

It is significant to mention here that an occupation certificate is a legal document that authorizes the construction of the building in the eyes of the law. It certifies that the building plan is in accordance with the construction laws approved by the concerned authorities, and the place is fit to be occupied. Without an Occupancy Certificate, a builder cannot guarantee basic civil amenities. Thus, obtaining an Occupancy Certificate is important before moving into a place to eliminate the risk of lawful eviction and demolition, which the opposite parties have admittedly not obtained.

Similarly, completion certificate is also a vital document issued by the Government Authorities to signify the successful completion of a building construction including the basic amenities. It also serves as formal proof that the building has been constructed according to approved plans, adhering to all building codes, 

14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-

 

1. in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and

 

2. in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."

 

15.           Thus, the candid admission of the opposite parties in their written version to the effect that they have applied for occupation certificate for which the Competent Authorities are taking considerable time for issuance of the same and silence on final completion certificate, is sufficient to hold that they are not in possession of occupation and completion certificates. As stated above, during pendency of this complaint even, despite the fact that counsel for the opposite parties gave offer to the complainants to take over possession on the ground that the unit is ready, however, when complainant no.1 visited the site, firstly it was found that there were certain discrepancies in the said unit and also at the same time, the opposite parties were not interested in giving the possession. Be that as it may, once it has been proved on record that the opposite parties have failed to obtain occupation and final completion certificates from the Competent Authorities, the question of delivery of legal and valid possession of the unit in question did not arise.

                   In our considered opinion, by not offering and delivering possession of the unit in question by the promised date i.e. 30.09.2022, or even till the date when arguments were heard and case was reserved for orders, the opposite parties are deficient in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. The complainants are therefore held entitled to get delayed compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession.

 

Compensation payable by the opposite parties:-

16.           Now the question arises, as to what compensation should be granted to the complainants in this case? It may be stated here that Consumer Protection Act has been made to safeguard the consumer rights. In the present case, failure of the opposite parties to offer and deliver possession of the unit in question, for such an inordinate delay which is still continuing, amounts to deficiency in service. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon’ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of actual physical possession. Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285- 2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019, by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora’s case (supra). Furthermore, in Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon’ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered.

Under these circumstances, if we grant interest @9% p.a. to the complainants on the entire amount deposited by them in respect of the unit in question, from 30.09.2022 onwards till possession of the unit in question is actually delivered to them, that will meet the ends of justice.

 

Complainants cannot be said to be defaulters:-

17.           To defeat the claim of the complainants, it has been vehemently contended by counsel for the opposite parties, that the complainants were defaulter in making payment, which is evident from the document, Annexure R-1/6, which shows that an amount of Rs.65,856/- was raised qua delayed interest for delay in making payments by the complainants.  It may be stated here that in our considered opinion, once the opposite parties have admittedly failed to complete the development and construction activities at the project site and still they are not in a position to do so, as is clearly coming out from the record, as has been discussed above,  the complainants were right in holding payment for some time, when they saw that there was no construction and development activities at the project site being carried out as per the schedule. The complainants could not be expected to go on making payments to the opposite parties, as per the payment plan, when they discovered that they are carrying out the construction at snail speed and are not in a position to hand over possession of the property in time, for want of construction and development at the project site. Our view is supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Raj Mehta, Appeal (Civil) 5882 of 2002, decided on 24.09.2004, wherein, it was held that if the builder is at fault in not delivering possession of the residential units by the stipulated date, it cannot expect the allottee(s) to go on paying installments to it. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser. In these circumstances, in no way, the complainants can be termed as defaulters, especially when it is a proven fact that the opposite parties were not in a position to offer possession of the unit in question by the stipulated date or even thereafter for a long period, for dearth of construction and basic amenities and the delay is still continuing. As such, plea taken by the opposite parties that the complainants are defaulters being devoid of merit stands rejected.

 

Complaint is not bad for misjoinder of necessary party:-

18.           As far as objection taken by the opposite parties that the complaint is bad for not impleading the Bank of Maharashtra  from which the complainants have obtained housing loan for making payment towards price of the said unit, it may be stated here that the opposite parties have failed to apprise this Commission, as to what prejudice has been caused to them, if  Bank of Maharashtra  has not been impleaded in this complaint. No allegations, either by the complainants or the opposite parties, have been leveled against Bank of Maharashtra qua the loan amount sanctioned and released by it etc. Had there been any requirement of Bank of Maharashtra this Commission would have directed Bank of Maharashtra to put in appearance through its authorized representative. Under these circumstances, plea taken by the opposite parties  in this regard stands rejected.

 

Limitation:-

19.           Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that this complaint is barred by limitation, it may be stated here that since admittedly,  possession of the unit in question has not been delivered to the complainants even till the date, when arguments were heard in this complaint and the case was reserved for orders, therefore, there is continuing cause of action in favour of the complainants to file this complaint, in view of principle of law down in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein it was held that till the time possession is not offered and delivered by the builder/developer, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. As such, objection taken in this regard also stands rejected.

 

Structure of tower in question was to constructed of RCC and not of Mivan Technology:-

20.           As far as plea taken by the complainants to the effect that the opposite parties had committed to construct the tower in question by Mivan Technology where no bricks were to be used which they failed to do, it may be stated here that the complainants have failed to place on record any document/evidence to establish that the opposite parties ever committed to construct the tower in question by Mivan Technology.  Whereas, on the other hand, it is clearly coming out from the contents of brochure Annexure C-1 that it has been written as “Structure External Finish= Earthquake Resistant RCC Framed Structure, Appropriate Finish of Texture of Exterior Grade”. At the same time, the opposite  parties have placed on record the “Structure Safety Structure, Annexure R-1/7, having been issued by the Structure Engineer, wherein it has been clearly certified that “….the structural design for La Parisian Tower T9 (Triomphe A), comprising of Basement + Ground +15 floors structure & Single Storey Commercial (Booths 1 to 18) have been designed with due consideration to seismic forces as per prevalent L.S. Code No.- 4326-1993. 1. S. Code 1893(Part-1)-2016. (The code for Earthquake Resistant Structure), 13920-2016 (Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subject to Seismic forces, 456-2000 (Code of practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete) and 875-1987 (Code of Practice for Design Loads). The said structures are designed to be safe and stable for the purpose for which it is intended. This is to the best of my knowledge and belief today…”  In this view of the matter, plea taken by the complainants stands rejected.

 

Relief:-

21.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs against the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To hand over possession of the unit in question, to the complainants, complete in all respects, after obtaining occupation and completion certificates from the competent Authorities and providing all the basic amenities and facilities including club house, strictly as per the specifications mentioned in the brochure and agreement, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
2. To pay to the complainants compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. from 30.09.2022 onwards till 31.01.2024 on the entire received sale consideration in respect of the unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount of compensation from 30.09.2022 to 31.01.2024 aforesaid shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainants.
3. To pay to the complainants, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire received sale consideration, w.e.f. 01.02.2024, onwards (per month), by the 10th of the following month till compliance of directions given in sub-para no.(i) above.  
4. To pay to the complainants, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing them  mental agony & harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade  practice; and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

However, the opposite parties are at liberty to deduct the remaining sale consideration, if any/taxes as applicable as per agreement, payable by the complainants, in respect of the unit in question, out of the awarded compensation.

 

22.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
23.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

25.01.2024

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg