Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/82/2022

RAJESH AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RACHIT KAUSHAL ADV.

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	82 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	23.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	20.03.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

1]       RAJESH AGGARWAL, S/o Sh. R. N. Aggarwal, Resident of H. No. 5, Sector 15, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

2]       Alka Aggarwal W/o Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Resident of H. No. 5, Sector 15, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

3]       Hament Mahajan S/o Sh. Sudagar Shah Mahajan, Resident of H. No. 2525, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

 

           4]       Sudagar Shah Mahajan, S/o Sh. Sita Ram, Resident of H. No. 2525,        Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

 

...Complainants.

Versus 

 

1]       M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, having its registered office at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Chairman Sushil Ansal.

 

2]       Sushil Ansal, Chairman, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

3]       Pranav Ansal, Vice Chairman, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

4]       Authorized Signatory, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, having its Corporate Office at S.C.O No. 12-A, Ansal City Centre, Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 115, S.AS. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued By:-      

Sh. Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Prateek Garg, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 exparte vide order dated 17.01.2023.

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Brief facts:-

1]                The Complainants had known each other for the past many years and Complainants No.1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively and Complainants No.3 and 4 are related to each other as son and father and it was their common requirement that they required a residential dwelling in the vicinity of Chandigarh, where the Complainants wanted to reside with their extended families. Therefore, they applied jointly for the allotment of an area of half an acre in the proposed township of the Opposite Parties and it was assured to them by the Opposite Parties that an area of 675 sq yards (developed residential plotted area) would be allotted to them in their Project coming up in Sector 116, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali. A Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure C-1) was executed. The Complainants jointly made a payment of Rs.55,00,000/- i.e. Rs.40,00,000/- vide cheque No.271731 dated 12.01.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank and Rs.15,00,000/- vide cheque No.150334 dated 12.01.2010 drawn on same Bank for the said allotment including all expenses as well as registration charges irrespective of the procurement price in the Proposed Project. The payments, vide receipts Annexure C-2 (Colly), were acknowledged by the Opposite Parties in Recital C of the Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010. It was also stated in the recitals that the said land would be purchased in the name of the Opposite party No.1 company or its associate company. As per Clause 4 of the Development Agreement that Opposite Party No.1 was to carry out the development work of the proposed area without any interference from the Complainants herein. Further as per Clause 7(a), the allottees/Complainants shall be entitled to 1350 sq yards of developed residential plotted area for every acre of 4840 sq yards contributed by them for the development of the project and for half acre contribution, an area of 675 sq yards residential plotted area shall be allocated in their favour. Further as per Clause 8, 675 sq yards of developed plotted area was to be allotted in favour of the Complainants within a period of two (2) years from the date of execution of the said development Agreement i.e. by 14.01.2012. Further as per Clause 13(c), the allotment was to be made after discussing the same with the Complainants

2]                Accordingly, the Opposite Parties vide letters both dated 24.03.2011, Annexure C-3 (Colly), allotted Plots No.B-315 and B-316 to the Complainants, each admeasuring 160 sq. yards (totaling 320 sq. yard against promised area of 675 sq. yards) both having a Basic Sale Price of Rs.13,03,702.40.  It was stated in the letters that the Opposite parties had obtained the approval of land use and grant of License by the Competent Authority for their integrated Township "Golf Links-II" Sector 116, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. It also stated that the development work at site had already begun. The Opposite Parties also entered into two identical Plot Buyers’ Agreements both dated 24.03.2011, Annexure C-4 (Colly), for allotment of aforesaid plots. The said agreement also stated as regards the licenses  obtained and requisite approvals from the Punjab Government, Department of Housing and Urban Development for setting up a Mega Housing Project. Further Recital D states that the detailed Layout of the residential Colony (Lay out Plan) had also been accepted and approved by the CTP and pursuant thereto, "Golf Links-II, Sector 116" is being developed.

3]                As per Clause 4.4 of the Plot Buyers' Agreements, making payment of sale consideration in accordance with the payment plan on due dates as per the call notices was the essence failing which, applicable interest at the rate of 20% per annum compounded quarterly was to be charged from the complainants.  Further, as per Clause 5.1, the Company was to complete the development of Residential Colony and the Plot as far as possible within 36 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the plot buyer agreement subject to extension due to reasons beyond the control of the company including force majeure. As such, it is the case of the complainants that the possession of both the allotted plots was to be offered within a period of 42 months from the date of execution of the Plot Buyers’ Agreements, i.e. by 24.09.2014, which the opposite parties have failed to offer even after a lapse of more than 7 years from the promised date of possession. It has been stated that time was in fact the essence of the agreement and also that the agreements as framed were totally biased in favour of the builder and against the interests of the Complainants. Subsequently, vide letter dated 12.01.2011, Annexure C-5, Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that Plot No.452 admeasuring 285 sq yards bearing a basic sale price of Rs.23,22,222/- was allotted in favour of the complainants by the Opposite parties but the said allotment was not made in Sector 116 Mohali but in their other township in Sector 114 Mohali, which was not acceptable to the Complainants. It has been stated that no Plot Buyers Agreement was ever asked to be executed by the Opposite Parties with respect to the said plot no.452 in Sector 114, Mohali, which shows that there was no intention of the Opposite Parties to allot the said plot and out of 675 sq yards, only 320 sq yards has been allotted and even these two plots have not been offered for possession. The Complainants reverted vide their letter dated 19.05.2011 and further vide letter dated 01.06.2011, Annexure C-6 (Colly), they specifically stated that Plot No.452 in Sector 114 Mohali is not acceptable to them and it was again requested to allot plots in sector 116 as per the commitment by their CEO of that time Mr. Deepak Sachdev.

4]                Further the Opposite Parties sent two call notices both dated 30.01.2012, Annexure C-7 (Colly), wherein External Development Charges for plots No.B-315 and B-316 were separately asked to be deposited, amounting to Rs.2,87,200/- each, which were paid by the complainants aggregate to Rs.5,74,400/- in addition to the Sale Consideration, vide receipts dated 16.02.2012 and 17.02.2012, Annexure C-8 (Colly).

5]                The complainants, in their complaint have categorically stated that in various cases pertaining to the said Sector 116, particularly, in Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2020 titled as Anoop Supehia & Anr Vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. decided by this Commission on 05.01.2021, it has also come out that Opposite Party No.1 has not even applied for the Completion Certificate for Sector 116. It has further been stated that even today, no roads have yet been constructed in this particular lane and the Opposite Parties have not taken consent from the Complainants in terms of Clause 13 of the Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010 before allotting the said plots.

6]                Lastly, it has been stated that the Opposite parties have failed in providing the promised services as per their own terms and conditions, which is clearly a deficiency in service and in fact, not obtaining Completion Certificate for the area where the plot of the Complainants is situated (Sector 116 Mohali), is in itself a grave deficiency in service and tantamounts to fraudulent behaviour on part of the Opposite Parties.

Reliefs claimed:-

7]                Thus, by filing this complaint, the complainants have claimed the various reliefs, such as, direction to the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to hand over the actual physical possession of the promised plots; pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs.55,00,000/- @12% P.A. from the respective dates of deposits till legal possession of the plots is offered after duly obtaining the Completion Certificate for their project, Golf Links-II, Sector 116 Mohali; furnish receipts of the amount of Rs.5,74,400/- paid as External Development Charges deposited on the allotted plots and since even the allotted plots have not been offered to the Complainants, pay interest on the said amount @12% P.A. from the dates of deposit till realization, pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant besides paying Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation charges.

8]                It may be stated here that on 22.12.2022, Sh.Rajiv K.Bhatia, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of all the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Mahesh Ram, Office Clerk – Legal. Thereafter, Sh. Prateek Garg, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties. However, on 17.01.2022, Sh. Prateek Garg, Advocate stated that he is only appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, the remaining opposite parties No.2 to 4 were proceeded exparte on 17.01.2022, which order, inter-alia, reads thus:-

“……..Record transpired that notice has been served to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 through registered AD cover on 02.12.2022. However, notice sent to Opposite Party No.4 through registered cover has been received back unserved with the report “no such person”. Even notice has been served to Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 through email on 13.12.2022. So, it is clear that service has been effected to Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 through email. This Commission is satisfied that the service through email is a proper service in the eyes of law, as such, Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are deemed to have been served sufficiently. None has put in appearance on their behalf, despite waiting sufficiently. Hence, Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are proceeded against exparte…..”

9]                However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 24.01.2023, instead of filing reply and evidence, a Miscellaneous Application No.32 of 2023 under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for staying of complaint proceedings, was filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn by the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 on the next date of hearing i.e. 27.02.2023. The said order dated 27.02.2023, inter-alia, reads thus:-

                   “This application has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for staying complaint proceedings.

                   Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of order dated 13.01.2023 passed by Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.41 of 2023 wherein it has been clarified that the order of Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 application shall confine to ‘Fernhill project’ situated at District Gurgaon. Thus, this moratorium is not applicable to the present project.

                   At this stage, in view of above, Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 wants to withdraw this application. Accordingly, this application i.e. MA/32/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.”

 

10]              In the absence any reply/evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 on record, Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, during the course of final arguments, raised following objections:-

1. The complainants are not consumers qua Opposite Party No.1 as they purchased the property for commercial purposes.
2. Since, there exists an Arbitration Clause 15 in the Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010, Annexure C-1, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred and the Courts at New Delhi only have the jurisdiction.
3. Further, since Development Agreement, Annexure C-1, was the business agreement, therefore, the matter should be relegated to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 
4. Further, this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of Clause 11.2 of Plot Buyer Agreement, Annexure C-4, whereby it was agreed between the parties that all the disputes shall be resolved by the Courts where the land is located i.e. Mohali and High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
5. Further, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred as there is no continuing cause of action in this case and the judgment relied upon by the complainant in Lata Construction  & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000(1) CPC 269/ AIR 1999 SC 380 was based on novation of contract and further, the complaint has been filed after long years.

11]              On merits of the case, it was argued that the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs as sought by them in the complaint and the complaint be dismissed.

12]              After considering the rival contentions of the parties and going through the material available on record, we decide the aforesaid issues as under:-

13]              Consumer:

                   As regards the issue whether the complainants are consumers or not, it may be stated here that in Para 14 of their complaint as well as their joint affidavit, the complainants have specifically stated that they had applied for the said allotment for constructing their dwelling house for themselves and their families and had planned to shift base to Mohali for a peaceful life and not for any commercial purpose and further as they wanted to reside near Chandigarh, which has better medical and civic facilities as compared to their place of residence. Further, we may state here that the onus is upon the Opposite Parties to establish that the land in question was purchased by the complainants to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of units’ i.e. for earning profits, 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 Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under which this complaint has been filed. As such, this contention of the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 stands rejected. 

14]              Arbitration Clause:

                   So far as the next limb of argument that there exists an Arbitration Clause 15 in the Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010, Annexure C-1, therefore, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred and the Court(s) at New Delhi only has the jurisdiction, it may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with 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. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even the Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 against order dated 13.02.2018, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 10.12.2018. As such, contention is also stands rejected.

15]              Business Agreement - Civil Court  

                   The contention with regard to the Development Agreement, Annexure C-1, a business agreement and therefore, the matter should be relegated to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, has no force because nowhere in this agreement, it is said that the land in question is being allotted for commercial purpose to the complainants. Moreover, Clause (7) thereof stipulated that the Second Party i.e. the complainants shall be entitled to 1350 Sq. Yds. of developed residential plotted area for every acre of 4840 Sq. Yds. contributed by them for development of the said project. It further states that for half acre contribution, an area of 675 Sq. Yds. residential plotted area shall be allotted in favour of the complainants. Therefore, this contention raised on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 stands rejected being not sustainable.

16]              Territorial Jurisdiction:

                    Now coming to the next contention raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that it is settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the Court/Tribunal/Fora within the territorial limits of which that occurs. In the instant case, it is established on record that the payments made by the complainant were acknowledged by Opposite Party No.1 at their Chandigarh Office situated at SCO No.183/184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh vide receipts Annexure C-2 (Colly.). Moreover, the complainants No.3 & 4, namely, Hament Mahajan and Sudagar Shah Mahajan are resident of Chandigarh and the complaint has been filed under new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as per Section 47(4)(d) whereof, a complaint can be instituted before the State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the complainant resides or personally works for gain. Not only above, even the Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010, Annexure C-1, was executed between the parties at Chandigarh. Thus, it is held that this Commission at Chandigarh has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Contention raised in this regard by the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 stands rejected.

17]              No continuing Cause of action – Complaint time barred:

                   As regards the contention raised that the complaint is time barred as there is no continuing cause of action in this case and the law settled in Lata Construction  & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000(1) CPC 269/ AIR 1999 SC 380 was on the basis of novation of contract, it may be stated here that this argument has no force as in Lata Construction & Ors (supra), the only question which came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court was as to whether if a builder has not delivered possession within the stipulated period or thereafter, whether the complainant has the right to file the consumer complaint or not. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that “Since the rights under the agreement of 1987 had not been given up and the appellants were constantly under an obligation to provide a flat to the respondents and deliver possession thereof to them, the Commission rightly treated “cause of action” to be a “continuing cause of action” and came to the right conclusion that the claim was not beyond time.” Not only in this case, but in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when possession of the residential units is not offered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. Since in the present case also, neither the rights under initial Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010 nor under the subsequent Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.02.2011, have been given up by the complainants, as such, the opposite parties are constantly under an obligation to provide the plot and deliver possession therefore. As such, there is a continuing cause of action in the instant case. Objection raised in this regard, as such, stands rejected.

Merits of the case:

18]              Coming to the merits of this case, it may be stated here that a bare perusal of record reveals that as per Clause 8 of the Development Agreement dated 14.01.2010, Annexure C-1, 675 sq yards of developed plotted area was to be allotted in favour of the Complainants within a period of two (2) years from the date of execution of the said Development Agreement i.e. by 14.01.2012. Further, vide Clause 5.1 of Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.02.2011, Annexure C-4 (colly.) executed between the parties, the opposite parties committed to deliver possession of the plot(s), in question, within a period of 36 months plus grace period of 6 months, total 42 months from the date of execution of the said agreement i.e. by 24.08.2014. However, they have failed to deliver possession thereof till date. At the time of arguments also, Counsel for opposite party no.1 failed to apprise this Commission, as to by which date, construction will be completed and possession of the plot(s), can be handed over to the complainants. Not even a single reason has been given for delay in offering possession of the plots in question to the complainants. The complainants paid their hard earned money of Rs.55,00,000/- towards sale consideration and Rs.5,74,400/- paid towards External Development Charges with a hope to have their own plot for construction of house thereupon. However, their hopes were dashed to the ground, as neither possession has been delivered to them nor delayed compensation for the period of delay has been paid by the opposite parties. Thus, from the peculiar circumstances of this case, it has been proved that the opposite parties made false representations, which were materially incorrect and were made in such a way that the complainants, to whom it were made, were entitled to rely upon it and they may act in reliance on it. All the facts established that from the very inception, there was intent to induce the complainants to enter into the agreements, referred to above, in the year 2010 and 2011 but there was no desire of the opposite parties to deliver possession of the plots by promised date, which act amounts to grave deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, which has definitely caused a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainants.  Thus, in our considered view, the complainants are entitled to get actual physical possession of the promised plots, in Sector 116, Mohali in the project in question, alongwith delayed compensation for the period of delay.

19]              It is settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of construction and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/approvals have been obtained in respect thereof, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. It is very strange that in the present case, not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by opposite party no.1 to prove as to at what stage, construction and development work has reached at the project site and that as to whether approvals/sanctions have been obtained from the competent Authorities to launch the said project. In case, the development/construction activities are being undertaken or complete at the project site, then it was for opposite party no.1, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities, are being undertaken or complete at the site or not, but it failed to do so.

20]              Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that opposite party no.1 suffered any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, construction and development work at the project site could not be completed and possession of plot(s) was not delivered to the complainants by the committed dates, referred to above, or even till date.

21]              Thus, all the allegations leveled by the complainants in their complaint and also by their Counsel during arguments have gone un-rebutted/unchallenged by opposite party No.1 as it chose not to file written statement or evidence and the remaining opposite parties No.2 to 4 were proceeded against exparte by this Commission vide order dated 17.1.2023 as they chose not to appear before this Commission.

22]              From the peculiar circumstances of this case, it has been proved that the builder-Company made false representations, which were materially incorrect and were made in such a way that the complainants, to whom it was made, were entitled to rely upon it and they may act in reliance on it. The complainants are thereby involved in a disadvantageous contract with builder-Company and suffered financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Representations/statements made at that time were believed to be true. All the facts established that from the very inception there was intent to induce the complainants to enter into the contract by way of signing agreements, referred to above, and also intent to deceive them, which act amounts to grave deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the builder-Company.

23]          On account of delay in actual delivery of possession within the stipulated period, the complainants suffered mental agony, hardships and financial loss. 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 Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022, The Hon’ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“……Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to pay interest @9% w.e.f. 31.03.2014, i.e., the expected date of delivery of the possession, on the amount deposited by the respective Complainant till 02.09.2017, i.e., the date on which the possession of the Flat was offered by the Opposite Party Developer, within two months from today.  The Opposite Party Developer shall also pay cost of ₹25,000/- to the Complainants in each case.   Since we have awarded delay compensation till the date of offer of possession instead of actual physical possession of the Flat, the Opposite Party Developer shall not be entitled for any delay interest from the date of offer of possession till the date of payment made by the Complainant for taking physical possession of the Flat.…..”

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 possession is delivered. In the present case, the complainants have purchased the plot(s) in question, as far as back in 2010-2011. We are in 2023 and still, the complainants are empty handed and they are forced to approach this Commission for redressal of their grievance. The opposite parties have played fast and loose with the complainants and have caused harassment and mental agony to them, which is unacceptable and this practice needs to be deprecated. In our considered opinion, if we grant interest @9% p.a. to the complainants on the entire amount deposited by them, from the due date of possession onwards till delivery of possession thereof, that will meet the ends of justice.

24]              Since, the complainants have also paid amounts of Rs.2,87,200/- and Rs.2,87,200/- (totaling Rs.5,74,400/-) against plots No.B-315 and B-316, in addition to the Sale Consideration, vide receipts dated 16.02.2012 and 17.02.2012, Annexure C-8 (Colly), therefore, in the absence of any development in the project in question, they are also entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.5,74,400/- from the respective date(s) of deposit till handing over of actual physical possession of the developed plots.

25]              Since fault lies with the opposite parties in not delivering the possession of the plots in question, therefore, they are not entitled to any delayed interest or penalty from the complainants. 

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

1. To deliver actual physical possession of the residential plots bearing Nos.B-315 and B-316, measuring 160 Sq. Yards each, totaling 320 Sq. Yards in the residential colony in the name of “Golf Links-II” in the project in question (in Sector 116, Mohali), to the complainants, complete in all respects, after obtaining occupation and completion certificates from the competent Authority, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.  However, it is made clear that the complainants shall also pay the remaining sale consideration, if any, to the opposite parties before taking over the actual physical possession of the plots in question.   
2. To pay to the complainants, interest @9% p.a. on the amount deposited i.e. Rs.55,00,000/- towards sale consideration, starting from 24.08.2014 till 31.03.2023, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount 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, interest @9% p.a. on the amounts deposited w.e.f. 01.04.2023, onwards (per month), by the 10^th of the following month till actual delivery of physical possession of the plots, complete in all respects. 
4. To pay interest @9% p.a. to the complainants on the amounts of Rs.2,87,200/- and Rs.2,87,200/- (totaling Rs.5,74,400/-), paid as EDC, from the respective date(s) of deposit i.e. 16.02.2012 & 17.02.2012 respectively till 31.03.2023, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this payment of interest on the EDC shall continue till delivery of actual physical possession of the plots in question, which shall be paid by the 10^th of the following month.
5. To pay to the complainants, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing them  mental agony and harassment and also for deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and 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.

27]              Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this complaint stands disposed of having become infructuous.

28]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

29]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

20.03.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[RAJESH  K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad