Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/320

Naveen Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Blackberry Realcon Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

L.D.Gupta Adv.

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:320 dated 01.12.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 07.07.2023.

1. Naveen Jain son of Sh. Tarsem Chand Jain, resident of House No.71-A, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Ritu Jain wife of Naveen Jain, resident of House No.71-A, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Blackberry Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Having its corporate office at 11^th Floor, Paras Twin Tower (Tower-D), Sector 54, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Managing Director, M/s. Blackberry Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Having its corporate office at 11^th Floor, Paras Twin Tower (Tower-D), Sector 54, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon-122002

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. L.D. Gupta, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Pardeep Kapoor, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainants, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission has raised a consumer dispute with regard to delay in delivering the possession of the allotted studio Apartment/Retail Unit No.ST/0812 on Eight Floor Type-A measuring 870 sq. feet super area in Project “Paras Square” Service Apartments & Retail Units, Sector 63, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter called ‘Apartment’) and have sought the following reliefs for directing the opposite parties:-

i.  To refund of Rs.79,10,741/- paid to the opposite parties along with interest @24% per annum

ii. To pay Rs.72,10,000/- for causing financial loss and causing mental tension, torture and agony to the complainants,

iii. To pay Rs.1,11,000/- as cost of litigation.

                  

                   For the sake of brevity, the following are the undisputed facts and circumstances extracted from the pleadings of the parties:-

                   On 05.08.2013, the complainants booked an apartment and paid an initial amount of Rs.7,50,000/- against receipt (Ex. C2) and on 05.08.2013. On 13.02.2014, the opposite parties started construction of the project. On 16.03.2014, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.7,08,705/-(receipt Ex. C3) and on 07.04.2015, the complainants and the opposite parties entered into a “Builder Buyer Agreement” (Ex. C4) and the complainants were allotted the Studio Apartment/Retail Unit No.ST/08.12 on Eighth Floor, Tower-A, Type-A measuring 870 sq. feet super area in said project for the total sale consideration of Rs.80,66,940/-. The complainants opted for Construction linked Payment Plan (Ex. C5) stipulating the Payment Plan and Payment schedule, which reads as under:-

          Payment Plan & Payments made Schedule

          Client Name                   :         Naveen Jain & Ritu Jain

          Unit No.               :         ST/08 12

          Super Area            :         870 sq. ft. (Approx.)     

          Type                     :         A

          Payment Plan        :         Construction Linked Payment Plan.

Stage	Basic Rate	Amount (Rs.)
Basic Sale Price	8,300	72,21,000.00
External Development Charges (EDC)	434	3,74,970.00
Internal Development Charges (IDC)	71	61,770.00
Parking	3,00,000	300,000.00
IFMS	125	1,08,750.00
Total Unit Cost		Rs.80,66,490.00

 

According to the complainant, they choose construction linked plan as per which they were required to pay next installments as per construction progressed, which is reproduced as under:-

                             Payment Schedule

Stage	Percentage	Amount (Rs.)
On booking	As applicable	1,000,000.00
Within 60 days of booking	20% of BSP – Less Booking Amount	4,44,200.00
On Start of excavation	10% of BSP	7,22,100.00
On completion of upper basement roof slab	10% of BSP + Car Parking	1,022,100.00
On completion of 1st Floor Roof Slab	10% of BSP	7,22,100.00
On completion of 3rd Floor Roof Slab	10% of BSP + 50% of EDC & IDC	9,40,470.00
On completion of 4rd Floor Roof Slab	10% of BSP + 50% of EDC & IDC	9,40,470.00
On completion of 6rd Floor Roof Slab	10% of BSP + 50% of EDC & IDC	9,40,470.00
Completion of 9th Floor Roof Slab	10% of BSP	7,22,100.00
On completion of Top Floor	10% of BSP	7,22,100.00
On installation of service	5% of BSP	3,61,050.00
On notice of possession	5% of BSP + IFMS	4,69,800.00
Total		80,66,490.00

As per condition No.7 of this agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be handed over to the complainants complete in all respects within 36 months from the date of start of construction of project, which was started on 13.02.2014 and the opposite parties were legally bound to hand over the possession of this apartment maximum up to 13.02.2017. Moreover, as per condition No.9 of the agreement, in case the opposite parties could not hand over possession of the apartment within stipulated date i.e. 13.02.2017 then they will be liable to pay compensation @ 9% PA on the deposited amount for the delayed period to the complainant.            

                   The complainants obtained house loan of Rs.50,50,000/- from Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Ludhiana and on  03.07.2015, the complainants entered into a tripartite agreement (Ex. C7) with the opposite parties and HDFC Ltd. The opposite parties accorded permission to mortgage the Apartment vide letter dated 03.06.2015 (Ex. C6). Thereafter, the complainant made various payments to the opposite parties  and total amount of Rs.79,10,741/- was paid towards sale consideration.

                   The summary of payments is detailed as under:-

Sr. No.	Date of payment and receipt	Amount	Purpose
1.	05.08.2013 vide receipt Ex. C2	Rs.7,50,000.00	Booking amount
2.	16.03.2014 vide receipt Ex C3	Rs.7,48,890.00	Amount to be paid within 60 days of booking of the apartment
3.	31.08.2015 vide receipt Ex. C8	Rs.9,36,750.00	As per settled terms
4.	31.08.2015 vide receipt Ex. C9	Rs.25,10,393.00	On account of Upper Basement 1st and 3rd floor Roof Slab & S.T.
5.	22.01.2016 vide receipt Ex. C10	Rs.10,20,815.00	On account of completion of 6th  Floor roof slab.
6.	29.03.2016 vide receipt Ex. C11	Rs.7,18,792.00	As per settled terms
7.	30.03.2017 vide receipt Ex. C12	Rs.3,96,676.00	As installment
8.	30.03.2017 vide receipt Ex. C13	Rs.4,24,078.00	As installment
9.	01.06.2018 vide receipt Ex. C14	Rs.4,04,376.00	As per demand of the opposite party
	Total	Rs.79,10,770.00

 

Finally on 28.07.2018, the opposite parties issued a letter for possession (Ex. R1) to the complainants. As the complainants did not show their inclination to accept the possession for the Apartment, the opposite parties cancelled the allotment and five post dated cheques for the refund of amount were sent to the complainant. In December 2019, the complainants received to receive five post dated cheques drawn on HDFC Bank from the opposite parties (Ex. C24A to Ex. C28), detail of which is reproduced as under:-

Cheque No.	Date mentioned on these cheques	Amount
006238	31.12.2019	18,38,456.00
006239	28.02.2020	18,38,456.00
006240	30.04.2020	18,38,456.00
006241	31.05.2020	18,38,456.00
006242	30.06.2020	18,38,457.00

   

However, instead of encashment of the above said cheques, the complainant preferred to issue legal notice dated 12.02.2020 to the opposite parties and thereafter, on 01.12.2020 filed the present complaint.

2.                Initially, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.03.2021 as they did not appear despite service of summons sent through registered post dated 21.12.2020. The opposite parties filed Misc. application no.900 of 2021  In/and Revision Petition No.19 of 2021 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 20.08.2021 set aside the exparte order dated 24.03.2021 subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, out of which Rs.5,000/- was to be deposited in Consumer Legal Fund Account and remaining Rs.5,000/- was to be paid to the complainant and they were directed to file written statement within 15 days from 20.08.2021.

                   In compliance with the order dated 20.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, the opposite parties filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections, the opposite parties have assailed the complaint on the following grounds:-

1. That as per terms and conditions of the Builder Buyer Agreement (Ex. C4) there is clause No.39 about the arbitration proceedings and it has been agreed between the parties that all or any dispute arising between the parties to the agreement then it shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion, failing which the same shall be settled through arbitration and the arbitration proceeding shall be held at the registered office of the developers/opposite parties. Even as per the opposite parties the complaint is liable to be dismissed as when the Center as well as state Government has duly enacted a separate Statue for the sole purpose to entertain, try and adjudicate the matters of similar kind as matter in dispute, then this Hon'ble Commission is barred from adjudication of the present matter. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 has been enacted and Real Estate Regularity Authority (RERA) for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also establish the appellate authority to hear appeals from the decisions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
2. That the complainant has suppressed the facts regarding issuance of the cheques.
3. That as per provisions of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, the opposite parties admitted the factum regarding allotment of the Apartment, execution of “Builders Buyer Agreement” (Ex. C4), payment made by the complainant with the opposite parties from time to time, issuance of receipts, issuance of five post dated cheques. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service on their part and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainants filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement.

4.                In support of their claim, complainant No.1 Sh. Navin Jain for himself and on behalf of Rita Jain complainant No.2 tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C37, Ex. C37/1 and Ex. C37/2 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Tarun Sharma, authorized person of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of offer of possession dated 28.07.2018, Ex. R2 is the copy of cancel applicant file (Paras Square) dated 31.08.2021, Ex. R3 is the copy of Board Resolution and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties.

7.                   Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is desirable firstly to deal with the issue of maintainability of the complaint. The Consumer Protection Act being a special enactment created an Additional remedy in favour of the consumers to raise consumer disputes before the Consumer Commissions constituted under this Act. Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act is reproduced as under:-

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

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various pronouncements that the Arbitration Act does not have effect of taking away the remedy from the consumers in the Consumer Protection Act. Reference can be made to (1996) 6 SCC 385 in M/S. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.K. Modi; 2012(2) SCC 506 in M/S. National Seeds Corpn. Ltd vs M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr.; 2019(12) SCC 751 in M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs Aftab Singh.

8.                 Similarly, Section 79 of the RERA does not eclipse the rights of allottee to initiate proceedings under Consumer protection Act. While relying upon its earlier decisions in M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and another in Civil Appeal Nos.3681-90/2020 and Civil Appeal No.3591/2020 and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1005, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajay Nagpal & others 2020(3) Apex Court Judgments 001 (S.C.) has held that the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable even after commencement of RERA (Real  Estate Development and Regulation Act, 2016).   

                   Further 3 judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abhishek Khanna & another (2021) 3 SCC 241 has held that  two concurrent remedies are available to the aggrieved consumer, one under Consumer Protection Act and second under other laws, then aggrieved consumer has an independent option to elect which one out of two or more remedies, he wishes to exercise and if he elects one over the other, he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action. So in view of the ratio of above cited laws, the objections raised by the opposite parties qua the maintainability of the complaint are devoid of any merits and stand overruled.

9.                The next issue arises for determination as to whether there is delay o the part of the opposite parties in delivering the possession of the Apartment to the complainant and if so, whether the complainant is entitled to refund and compensation of the amount and as to what extent?

10.              In this regard, the relevant terms and conditions of Builder Buyer Agreement Ex. C5 are set out herein below:-

          “1.1 (b) Payment Plan

1. The Allottee(s) agrees and undertakes to pay the total Sale Consideration in time as per opted payment plan –CLP/DP/Fixed Monthly Income Plan (for selective Units only), upon receipt of the demand notices, without any reminders from the Developer, through [account Payee cheque(s)/demand draft(s)] made in favour of either “BLACKBERRY REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED” or “PARAS SQUARE” payable at New Delhi/NCR. The Allottee(s) agrees that the payments shall be made promptly as per the demand for payment of the scheduled payment on due dates as set out in the Payment Plan. In the event the Allottee(s) fails, neglects and/or delays the payment of installments, then, notwithstanding the right of the Developer at its sole discretion to cancel such allotment, at any time, after such default in payment occurs, the Developer may without prejudice to any other rights provided to it under this Buyer’s Agreement, waive such failures, neglects and/or delays in the payment of installments by the Allottee(s) subject to the condition that the Allottee(s) shall be bound to pay interest on the delayed period as per the terms of the delayed payment interest set out in clause 3(i). It is made clear and so agreed by the Allottee(s) that the exercise of such discretion to waive such failures, neglects and/or delays in the payment of installments by any one Allottee(s) shall not be construed to be a precedent and/or binding on the Developer to exercise such discretion, in case of other Allottee(s) as well.

3. Delay in payments

(i)           Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 27.1, in case of delay in making any payment herein by the Allottee(s), the Developer shall have the right to terminate this Buyer’s Agreement immediately and forfeit Earnest Money, brokerage, pending interest, or any other dues/deposit of non-refundable nature. The Developer shall also be entitled to charge interest @24% p.a. compounded at the time of every succeeding installment from the due date of installment, till the date of payment as per the Payment Plan. The Allottee(s) further agrees, acknowledges and undertakes that upon such termination of this Buyer’s Agreement, the Allottee(s) shall have no right to claim a refund of the Earnest Money or other charges forfeited by the Developer and accordingly he/it shall forgo al his/its rights, title and claim in respect of the Earnest Money upon such termination.

7.      Date of Completion

(a) Time of handing over the Possession

(i)      The date of completion of the Project shall be Thirty Six (36) months from the start of construction hereof, subject to force majeure or/and any other reason beyond the control of Developer, subject to all Allottee(s) having strictly complied with all the terms and conditions of this Buyer’s Agreement and not being in default under any provisions of the same and all amounts due and payable by the Allottee(s) under this Buyer’s Agreement having been paid in time to the Developer, The Developer immediately upon the receipt of OC/CC, shall give notice to the Allottee(s), in writing, to take possession of the Unit for his/its fit-outs and occupation and use (“notice of Possession”), on furnishing certain documents by the Allottee(s).

(ii)     The Allottee(s) agrees and understands that the Developer shall be entitled to a grace period of one hundred and Eighty (180) days over and above the period more particularly specified here-in-above in sub-clause (a) (i) of Clause 7, for completion of the project. 

(b) (v)          However, in the event of the aforesaid challenge by the Developer to the impugned legislation, order rule or regulation does not succeed and the said legislation, order, rule, of regulation becomes final, absolute and binding or any reason whatsoever it may be, causing the Project abandoned, the Developer will refund the money (ies) paid by the Allottee(s) in pursuance of this Buyer’s Agreement [along with an interest calculated at [9%] p.a. (simple interest) on the amount(s) paid by the Allottee(s) for such period of delay, after making payments of the statutory dues and secured creditors and after deducting interest on delayed payments, processing fee etc. and any other expenses attributable to the said Unit. Save as otherwise provided herein, the Allottee(s) shall not have any other right or claim of whatsoever nature against the Developer under or in relation to this Buyers Agreement.”

 

11.              A close scrutiny of these terms would reveal that there are heavily loaded in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainants at every step and it practically affords a very limited right to him to cancel the agreement that such contractual terms would not be final and binding upon the complainants. In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Govindan Raghwan (2019) 5 SCC 725, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat  purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder…. The incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the builder….., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms.” Further in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abhishek Khanna & another (2021) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “allottees who have not been given possession, cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession, nor they can be bound to take possession in other phase of the project. Such allottees are entitled to refund of entire amount deposited by them.”

12.              In this regard, it was has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and others Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & others (2020) 16 SCC 512, “failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated period, amount to deficiency.” Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “in case of gross delay in handing over possession by builder beyond contractually stipulated period, flat purchaser is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for such delay and such compensation not constrained by terms of rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain

13.              The counsel for the opposite parties contended that the following are the mitigating circumstances which nullifies the claim of compensation of the complainant:-

i.         As per the schedule, the complainants delayed in paying the installments of the unit and the complainants requested them to waive the interest on the delayed payment. The opposite parties were kind enough towards the complainants and waived the interest on delayed payment of the complainants and this fact has been duly admitted by the complainants.

ii.       The opposite parties even offered possession to the complainants vide letter dated 28.07.2018 by stating that since the time is of essence and requested the complainants to adhere to the timelines for making payments and completing the formalities for execution and registration of the conveyance deed. They also requested the complainants number of times to get the possession of the apartment but she every time refused to accept the possession. Hence it is the complainants who were not interested in taking the possession of the apartment and the delay could not be attributed to the OPs.

iii.      It is the complainants who firstly willfully and intentionally neglected to take possession of the apartment and thereafter, as a goodwill gesture the opposite parties had returned the entire amount in the form of four post dated cheques as mentioned hereinbefore but instead of encashing the same, the complainants issued a legal notice dated 12.02.2020 (Ex. C32) claiming refund of payment of Rs.79,10,741/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of payment till actual payment along with interest paid by them to the bank on the loan amount as well as to pay compensation within 15 days.

iv.      Further there is a concealment of receipt of post dated cheques by the complainants in their legal notice as well as in the present complaint and these cheques were subsequently tendered by way of additional evidence by the complainants just to fill up the lacuna.

 

                   On the other hand, the counsel for the complainants refuted the allegations and contended that the complainants had invested a huge amount in the project of the opposite parties for the purchase of the apartment for their residential purposes but due to the failure of the opposite parties in handing over the possession of the apartment, complainants had to suffer immense harassment and was deprived of usage of the same. Not only this, till date the opposite parties are enjoying the benefits of the amount deposited by the complainants and such like other consumers.

14.              After appreciating the rival contentions of the parties hereto, the Commission is of the view that the complainants are entitled to compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress injustice done to the complainant. The amount of compensation can be determined by taking into facts and circumstances of each case and also mitigating circumstances that may arise in favour of the opposite parties as well. Reference can be made to 2020(3) Apex Court Judgments 27 (S.C.) in DLF Home Developers ltd. (Earlier known as DLF Universal Ltd.) & another Vs Capital Green Flat Buyers Association Etc. Etc. whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the compensation awarded at the rate of 7% for delay in delivery of possession of the apartments and considering the facts and circumstances, compensation on account of delay brought down from 7% to 6% p.a. However, the amount, if any, which has been paid in terms of contractual rate shall be adjusted while computing balance due.   In these set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount Rs.76,40,016/- (the amount deposited by the complainants with the opposite parties i.e. Rs.79,10,741 – Rs.2,70,725.00 service tax paid)  along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. till 30.06.2020, the date of issuance of 5^th and last cheque and also along with interest @6% per annum from 31.06.2020 till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay an additional interest @3% per annum on the said amount(s). The interest paid on the amount shall be considered as compensation. However, the complainants are awarded litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The complainants would be at liberty to seek reimbursement of tax amount of Rs.2,70,725/- from the competent authorities in accordance with law.

15.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount Rs.76,40,016/- (the amount deposited by the complainants with the opposite parties i.e. Rs.79,10,741 – Rs.2,70,725.00 service tax paid)  along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. till 30.06.2020, the date of issuance of 5^th and last cheque and also along with interest @6% per annum from 31.06.2020 till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay an additional interest @3% per annum on the said amount(s). The interest paid on the amount shall be considered as compensation. However, the complainants are awarded litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The complainants would be at liberty to seek reimbursement of tax amount of Rs.2,70,725/- from the competent authorities in accordance with law.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Navin Jain Vs M/s. Blackberry Realcon Pvt. Ltd.           CC/20/320

Present:       Sh. L.D. Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh. Pardeep Kapoor, Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount Rs.76,40,016/- (the amount deposited by the complainants with the opposite parties i.e. Rs.79,10,741 – Rs.2,70,725.00 service tax paid)  along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. till 30.06.2020, the date of issuance of 5^th and last cheque and also along with interest @6% per annum from 31.06.2020 till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay an additional interest @3% per annum on the said amount(s). The interest paid on the amount shall be considered as compensation. However, the complainants are awarded litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The complainants would be at liberty to seek reimbursement of tax amount of Rs.2,70,725/- from the competent authorities in accordance with law.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (SanjeevBatra)

Member                         Member                            President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.