Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/745/2017

Sukhmander Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	745 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	17.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.09.2018

Sukhmander Singh, aged 77 years S/o Shri Mahla Singh R/o 45847, Vinehill Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539, USA through his special power of attorney Smt.Birendra Kaur W/o Sh.Jatinder Singh Virk R/o Plot No.D-151, Phase 8, Industrial Area, Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., S.C.O. No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, above British Library, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite party

Argued by:- Sh.Pawan Kumar Mutneja and Ms.Nikita Garg, Advocates for the complainant.

Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for the opposite party.

=======================================================

Complaint case No.	:	82 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	22.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.09.2018

Mr.Lovekesh Kathuria son of Manoharlal Kathuria, resident of House No.39, Indira Colony, Near Old Power House, Sonipat, Haryana.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2^nd Address:-

M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., S.C.O. 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Directors having Branch Office at SCO No.337-338, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

=======================================================

Complaint case No.	:	118 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	16.03.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.09.2018

Kajal Bhatia W/o Sh.Sudhir Bhatia, R/o H.No.76/1, MahalBanbhagyara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
Dr.Sudhir Bhatia, S/o Sh.Safri Ram, R/o H.No.76/1, MahalBanbhagyara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.

Corporate Office Address:-

S.C.O. No.183-184, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.

Second Address:-

115, Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory; SCO 154-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

=======================================================

Complaint case No.	:	155 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	09.09.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.09.2018

Gurvinder Pal Singh S/o Sh.Satnam Singh, R/o Flat No.118/3, Acme Heights, Chhaju Majra Road, Sector 126, Greater Mohali, Kharar (Punjab).
Mrs.Kulvinder Kaur W/o Sh.Gurvinder Pal Singh, S/o Sh.Satnam Singh, R/o Flat No.118/3, Acme Heights, Chhaju Majra Road, Sector 126, Greater Mohali, Kharar (Punjab).

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.

Corporate Office Address:-

S.C.O. No.183-184, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.

Second Address:-

115, Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, through Sh.Deepak S. Parekh, Chairman/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

Branch Office Address:-

HDFC Ltd., SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Ms.Divya Khanna, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

=======================================================

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

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

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid four consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants. Arguments in the said complaints were heard in common, on 06.09.2018. In all the complaints, referred to above, issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. As such, during arguments, it was agreed by the contesting parties, that all the four complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.745 of 2017 titled as Sukhmander Singh Vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of entire amount paid i.e. Rs.38,15,469/- (which amount is not disputed by the opposite party), towards flat bearing no.261 FF, measuring 1435 square feet, purchased by him, for basic sale price of Rs.39 lacs, plus external development charges, preferential location charges etc., in a project launched by the opposite party, under the name and style ‘Victoria Floors”, Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab (in short the unit), as possession thereof was not delivered to him, by the committed date i.e. 08.08.2014 [total 36 months (30 months plus (+) 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. from 09.08.2011] , or even by the date of filing this complaint. It was stated that the said unit was purchased by the complainant, for his personal use, as he wanted to come back to India, after his retirement, from his job at USA. It was further stated that by not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date or even thereafter, the complainant was caused mental agony, harassment and also financial loss, as he could not shift his household furniture etc., which was to be brought from his native Village in India, as a result whereof, he was forced to sell the same. It was further stated that except bald commitments made by the opposite party, nothing came out, as far as delivery of possession of the unit, in question, is concerned. Even by August 2016, the opposite party had been giving bald assurances that possession of the unit, will be delivered shortly, but to of no avail. Visits made to the project site revealed that construction was put to halt. Only structure of the tower, in which the unit, in question, is located, was found standing. Request made to the opposite party, to refund the amount paid was refused by it. Feeling aggrieved, the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of the entire amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc.
Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein, allotment of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant; payment made by him as stated in the complaint; and execution of the agreement dated 09.08.2011 was not disputed. However, it was stated that the unit, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainant being investor, would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that the period of 30 months plus 6 months, for delivering possession of the unit, was tentative, as such, time was not the essence of contract. It was averred that the opposite party has already applied for completion certificate, in respect of the project, in question, which is pending before the Competent Authorities, as such, delay, if any, is on the part of the said Authorities and not the opposite party. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of the opposite party.
The parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, very carefully.
The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is a speculator, and that he has purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, he would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act., as alleged by the opposite party. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainant is a property dealer and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In his complaint, it has been specifically stated by the complainant that the unit, in question was purchased by him, with a view to settle in India, after his retirement from his job at U.S.A. The stand of the complainant is further fortified from the contents of email dated 25.06.2016 Annexure C-7, having been sent by him, to the opposite party, requesting it to complete construction of his unit, as he wanted to shift his house hold items during his visit to India, in first week of August 2016. Mere fact that the complainant is presently residing in USA, did not mean that he cannot purchase a flat/unit, in India, his motherland, to stay therein, after his retirement therefrom. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite party mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case.

At the time of arguments, it was vehemently argued by Counsel for the opposite party that since the complainant is an NRI, as such, he would not fall within the definition of consumer. It may be stated here that, no law debars NRIs, with roots in India, to purchase a residential property in India. Under similar circumstances, the Hon`ble National Commission, in a case titled as Smt. Reshma Bhagat & Anr. Vs. M/s Supertech Ltd. Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 2012, decided on 04.01.2016, held as under:-

“We are unable to clap any significance with these faint arguments. It must be borne in mind that after selling the property at Bangalore, and in order to save the money from riggers of capital gain tax, under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there lies no rub in getting the property, anywhere, in whole of India. There is not even an iota of evidence that they are going to earn anything from the flat in dispute. From the evidence, it is apparent that the same had been purchased for the residence of the complainants. Moreover, Sh. Tarun S. Bhagat, who is an independent person. It cannot be made a ‘rule of thumb’ that every NRI cannot own a property in India. NRIs do come to India, every now and then. Most of the NRIs have to return to their native land. Each NRI wants a house in India. He is an independent person and can purchase any house in India, in his own name.”

The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite party, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, in the project of the opposite party, for basic sale price of Rs.39 lacs plus external development charges, etc. Admittedly, promise was made to hand over possession of the built-up unit, within a total period of 36 months (30 months plus 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the agreement dated 09.08.2011. End date to hand over possession stood expired on 08.08.2014 however, nothing was done. Even in the written reply also no commitment to hand over possession of the unit in near future was made by the opposite party. It was only said that the Company has applied for completion certificate and possession will be delivered after receiving the same. However, such a plea is not substantiated by any document. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that the onus to prove that construction of the units had been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder. It was also so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. Thus, in case, all the development activities, had been undertaken, and construction of units, is complete at the site, then it was for the opposite party, 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 construction and development activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but it failed to do so. At the time of arguments, when asked for, Counsel for the opposite party failed to give any positive date/time, as to when, construction, will be completed and possession of the constructed unit will be given to the complainant. Above facts clearly go to show that the opposite party was not serious in completing the construction and handing over possession of the built-up unit to the complainant. In view of above, it can safely be said that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of the opposite party and further by making false promise and not delivering possession of the unit, after receipt of huge amount, it also indulged into unfair trade practice.

Not only in the instant case, earlier also, we have noticed that in some other cases also, there is an attempt on the part of the opposite party to delay the proceedings and that at the spot construction is not complete. In a similar project (Golf Links-II) of the opposite party, in the same area, in the case of Prem Kumar Kanwar and another Vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., consumer complaint bearing no.612 of 2017 decided on 19.02.2018, it was observed by this Commission as under:-

“…….It is not in dispute that the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period as provided in the Agreement or even till date, for want of construction at the site and also necessary approvals, from the Competent Authorities. The complainants have sought refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc. It is to be analyzed as to whether, in view of facts noted above; pleadings on record and arguments raised, it is open to the complainants, to claim above said relief or not.

It is not in dispute that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, for which Floor Buyer’s Agreement was signed between the parties on 16.12.2011. Constructed unit was sold in favour of the complainants, for an amount of Rs.39 lacs, excluding external development charges. As per condition no. 5.1 of the Agreement, it was incumbent upon the opposite party, to hand over possession within a period of 30 months, with extended period of 6 months i.e. total 36 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement i.e. on or before 15.12.2014. The date of offer of possession of the unit i.e. 15.12.2014 already stood expired. Now it is February 2018. More than three years have lapsed.

Contention of Counsel for the complainants that construction at the spot is virtually stopped, needs acceptance. By the date, when arguments were addressed before us, possession has not been offered to the complainants. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite party failed to give any positive date/time, as to when, construction, will be completed and possession of the constructed unit will be given. In the written reply also, no commitment was made, as to by which time and date, possession of the unit will be delivered, after construction. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite party. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, it is very strange that not even a single document has been placed on record, by the opposite party, in respect of the unit, in question, to prove that the construction is complete and it is actually ready for offer and delivery of possession. In case, all the development activities had been undertaken and construction of the flats is complete at the project site, then it was for the opposite party, 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 and construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but it failed to do so. At the same time, the opposite party was also required to produce on record, a copy of the occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authorities, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove its case, but it miserably failed to do that also.

At the time of arguments, a very strange objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party that construction of the units could not be completed, due to force majeure circumstances, faced by the opposite party i.e. non-approval of the project building plans, by the Officers of the Govt. Department concerned. It was stated that frivolous objections were raised by the Department, without any reasons. We have perused the reply filed. There is nothing on record, to show that any such alleged objections were ever raised by the Govt. Department, in respect of the project in question. Furthermore, no details in the reply have been given by the opposite party, as to at what stage and when, the alleged frivolous objections were raised by the Department, before granting approvals of the building plans etc. in respect of the project, in question. Such a plea taken by the opposite party, without any basis, needs rejection and is accordingly rejected.

In the instant case also, despite receipt of huge amount, referred to above, the opposite party has failed to complete construction of the unit, in question, and hand over possession thereof to the complainant. The date of offer of possession of the unit already stood expired, as far as back in August 2014. Now it is September 2018. Still the complainant is empty handed. He cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, at the whims and fancies of the opposite party.

Under above circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation on the part of the opposite party, in not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant, by the promised dated or even as on today, thereby committing material violation on its part, apart from deficiency in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.

Furthermore, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the opposite party suffered any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, construction could not be completed.

In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been actually faced by the opposite party, it was bound to deliver possession of the unit, by August 2014, as such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract. The opposite party also cannot evade its liability, merely by saying that since the words “shall endeavor” was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. The act of non-mentioning of exact date in the allotment letter/Agreement is violation of CHAPTER II Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Transfer and Management of Apartments, Plots and Properties, Condition no. 3(2) (g) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), which says that the project proponent is duty bound to specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the unit is to be handed over and it shall hand over such possession accordingly. Relevant contents of condition no.3(2) (g) of PAPRA are reproduced below:-

“(g) specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly”;

Furthermore, non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement/allotment letter, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the plots/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof. It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of the opposite party, in this regard, also stands rejected

It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that huge amount equal to more than about 90% was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments beyond period of three months, the opposite party was charging heavy rate of interest @21% compounded quarterly, as per Clause 4.5 of the agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335. In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the actual dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite party, in case of delayed payment, as per Clause 4.5 aforesaid, till realization. However, it is made clear that, in case, in any of the consumer complaints, the unit, in question, was purchased in resale, interest shall be payable from the date of endorsement/transfer of the said unit, on the entire amount paid to the opposite party.

In view of above facts of the case, the opposite party is also under an obligation to compensate the complainant(s), for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.
For the reasons recorded above, all the four complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer complaint bearing No.745 of 2017. The opposite party is directed to: -

Refund the amount of Rs.38,15,469/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
Pay compensation, in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
Pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
The payment of awarded amount, in the manner referred to above, at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall further carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of @12%, in the manner, referred to therein, from the date of default and interest @12% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

Consumer complaint bearing No.82 of 2018. Opposite parties no.1 and 2, jointly and severally are directed to:-

To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainant from his own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To refund the amount to the complainant, if any pending, which had been paid by him to opposite party no.3, towards equal monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite parties no.1 and 2 only, under subvention scheme.
To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.3, released by it, in favour of opposite parties no.1 and 2, in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.3, opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall be bound to pay the equal monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.3, till realization.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.
The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
Complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

Consumer complaint bearing No.118 of 2018. Opposite party no.1 is directed to:-

To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainants from their own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To refund the amount to the complainants, if any pending, which had been paid by them to opposite party no.2, towards equal monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite party no.1 only, under subvention scheme.
To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.2, released by it, in favour of opposite party no.1, in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.2, opposite party no.1 shall be bound to pay the equal monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.2, till realization.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainants.
The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite party no.1 to the complainants, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
Complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

Consumer complaint bearing No.155 of 2018. Opposite party no.1 is directed to:-

To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainants from their own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To refund the amount to the complainants, if any pending, which had been paid by them to opposite party no.2, towards equal monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite party no.1 only, under subvention scheme.
To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.2, released by it, in favour of opposite party no.1, in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.2, opposite party no.1 shall be bound to pay the equal monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.2, till realization.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainants.
The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite party no.1 to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
Complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy each, be placed on connected files, referred to above.
The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.09.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Rg.

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/745/2017

Sukhmander Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319