M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. V/S Kavita Devi - Consumer Court Case

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/32/2017

Kavita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gorav Kathuria, Adv.

17 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	32 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Kavita Devi wife of Amar Nath R/o House No.73, Nyaypuri, Karnal – 132001.

.........Complainant.

Versus

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	5 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	03.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Anmol Singh Alagh s/o Sh. Taranjeet Singh Alagh r/o House No.544A, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Sh. Taranjna Alagh w/o Sh. Anmol Singh Alagh, r/o House No.544A, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector -8C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

..........Opposite Party.

Argued by:

Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	33 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Promila Dhindsa wife of Abhishek Dhindsa, resident of House No.1402, Sector 1, HUDA, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.
Abhishek Dhindsa son of K. S. Dhindsa, resident of House No.1402, Sector 1, HUDA, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

.........Complainants.

Versus

M/s DLF Home Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Independent Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Directors.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	34 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Tanveer Narwal son of Dilawar Singh resident of House No.350, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

.........Complainant.

Versus

M/s DLF Home Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Directors.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	35 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Dharam Raj Dangi son of Sh. Dharamvir Dangi resident of VPO Madina, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

.........Complainant.

Versus

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Directors.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	36 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Wg. Cdr. Punam Bhardwaj S/o Krishan Lal Bhardwaj R/o H.No.3358, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh – 160022.

.........Complainant.

Versus

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Directors.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	39 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	13.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Lt. Col. S. S. Ranot son of Sh. Baldev Singh Ranot, resident of Flat No.E-13-103, Sandeep Vihar, GH-79, Sector 20, District Panchkula (Haryana).

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Representative.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160009 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Representative.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	40 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	13.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Smt. Sarla Seth aged about 92 years wife of Late CDR Narendra Nath Seth resident of D-124, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024.
Sanjeev Seth son of Late CDR Narendra Nath Seth resident of D-124, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Representative.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160009 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Representative.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	55 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Amarjeet Singh Gujral S/o Sh. Nariender Singh Gujral, Life Care, Gujral House, 1^st Floor, Lakkar Bazar, Near Satkar Hotel, Shimla – H.P.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. SCO 190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT., Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	87 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	27.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Maj. Divesh Singh Spehia S/o Col. Jaswant Singh Spehia,
Col. Jaswant Singh Spehia S/o Sh. Thakur Sohan Singh Spehia,

Both R/o Paraplegic and Rehabilitation Centre, Phase-VI, Near Dara Studios, Mohali-160055, Punjab.

.........Complainants.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. SCO 190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT., Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	89 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	27.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Prabhat Krishan Bhat S/o Sh. A. K. Bhat, H.No.523, Sector 6, Panchkula.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. SCO 190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT., Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Narender Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	100 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	01.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Sidharth Jhinjha son of Vijay Singh R/o House No.22, Amravati Enclave, P.O. Surajpur, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. SCO 190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT., Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Consumer Complaint	:	101 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	01.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2017

Vijay Laxmi Bhadoo W/o Late Mr. Bhoj Raj Bhadoo, resident of VPO Waryam Khera, The. Abohar, Distt. Feropzpur.

.........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. SCO 190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh – UT., Pin – 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Office-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

Site Address:

The Valley, Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain, Sh. Arjun Sharma & Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocates for the Opposite Parties alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the Company.

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

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

SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid 13 consumer complaints bearing Nos.32, 5, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 55, 87, 89, 100 and 101 all of 2017.

2. After hearing arguments on 05.05.2017, we were of the opinion that the facts and issues in law, involved in the bunch of 14 complaints, by and large, were the same, and therefore, the same (complaints) could be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order. However, while dictating order, on perusal of documents in Complaint Case No.88 of 2017, it transpired that there were certain contradictions. We, therefore, deem it proper to list the aforesaid complaint bearing No.88 of 2017 for fresh hearing so as to have clarifications.

3. During arguments, Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, placed on record, a detailed chart, under her signatures, showing in each case detail of property, its price, date of application/agreement, total price and amount received and further the date when possession was offered, etc. which was taken on record. It was also stated by the Counsel that the facts given in the chart were correct, as per their record.

4. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.32 of 2017, titled as ‘Kavita Devi Vs. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’.

5. In brief, the facts are that initially one Sh. Brij Mohan was allotted an Independent Floor bearing No.DVF-E4/14-GF (Ground Floor), having two bedrooms), with specific area of 1298 sq. ft. in the project of the Opposite Parties, namely, ‘DLF Valley Panchkula’ on 19.03.2010 vide allotment letter (Annexure C-1). An Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between Sh. Brij Mohan and the Opposite Parties on 06.07.2011 (Annexure C-2). Subsequently, Sh. Bhag Chand, R/o H.No.143, Village Dhani Khan, Bahadur Majra, Barwala, Ditt. Hisar purchased the said floor from Sh. Brij Mohan on 06.05.2013. Thereafter, the said floor was purchased by the complainant from Sh. Bhag Chand on 30.08.2014, which was transferred in his (complainant’s) name vide endorsement dated 30.08.2014/transfer letter dated 30.08.2014 (Annexure C-3).

6. It was further stated that thereafter, the Opposite Parties raised demands of Rs.74,000/- on 07.08.2014 and Rs.44,366.47 on 29.09.2014, which the complainant paid vide receipts (Annexure C-4 colly.). It was further stated that despite lapse of more than one and half year of issuance of completion certificate, the basic amenities have not been provided at the site. It was further stated that the Government Department has issued completion certificate to the Opposite Parties without there being any facility of road, water supply, electricity supply, street lights, fencing outer boundary of the project. It was further stated that the complainant is waiting for her dream house since last 3 years and was left in lurch without there being any fault of her. It was stated that the Opposite Parties have cheated the complainant in most calculated and pre-planned manner to obtain gain for them and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had falsely represented the complainant that the project would be completed by December 2014 but they failed.

7. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties unilaterally changed the layout plan of the floor purchased by the complainant and changed the room size of the independent floor without any justification. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties in a malafide and fraudulent campaign usurped the hard earned money of the complainant by resorting to unfair trade practices, causing gross irreparable loss, harm and injury to her. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties vide their letter of offer of possession dated 08.06.2016 illegally raised demands from the complainant. It was further stated that demand of Rs.5,96,900/- was illegally raised on account of change in area & PLC as per Clause No.1.10 & 10 of the Agreement, as they unilaterally increased the floor area from 1475 to 1729 sq. ft.. It was further stated that the demand raised on account of other charges to the tune of Rs.1,57,391/- is not at all logical. It was further stated that demand of proportionate cost of electricity expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,00,368/- and Meter and Connection charges of Rs.30,497/-, without furnishing any detail for the same, was also illegal. Demand raised on account of club house was also termed to be arbitrary and illegal. It was further stated that demand of deposit of contingent VAT was also not justified as there was no demand for the same from the concerned authority. It was further stated that the demand towards common area maintenance and security charges was payable only after completion of project in all respects and from the date on which possession was to be delivered to the complainant.

8. It was further stated that due to delay in handing over the unit, in question, to the complainant, she is suffering huge monetary loss as she has been forced to live on rent by paying monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the non-caring attitude of the Opposite Parties, the complainant wrote letter dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure C-8) (in fact 05.07.2016) to the Opposite Parties to provide a copy of completion and occupation certificates so that she could settle the amount/payments before the time given vide offer of possession letter. It was further stated that there was no development at the site as the Malba and other construction material was still lying at the site. It was further stated that after offer of possession, the complainant visited the site and found that the unit, in question, is still not complete in all respects, as construction activity is still going on and even there is no boundary wall, of the area, where the allotted unit is situated.

9. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respect and after getting necessary clearance of the project from the Government Authorities; pay penal interest on the deposited amount viz. Rs.38,02,272/-, @24% p.a. from January 2015; pay Rs.3,60,000/- as rent calculated @Rs.15,000/- per month from January 2015 onwards; withdraw unreasonable demand claimed vide letter for offer of possession dated 08.06.2017 alongwith final statement of account (Annexure C-7); restore the original layout plan, which the Opposite Parties changed unilaterally by resorting to unfair trade practice; pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to unethical and unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony and abuse of dominant position, misleading and concealing the facts by the Opposite Parties; pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10. The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement stated that the complainant is a subsequent purchaser and had purchased the floor, in question, on 30.08.2014 from Bhag Chand, who in turn had purchased the said property from the original allottee namely Brij Mohan. It was further stated that the disputed floor was allotted to the original allottee on 19.03.2010 and subsequently, Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the Opposite Parties and the original allottee on 06.07.2011. It was further stated that the complaint has been filed in total disregard to the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, which amounted to default/breach of its terms and conditions. It was further stated that the complainant is backing out from the executed contract. It was further stated that the occupation certificate was applied on 20.11.2015 and the same was received on 13.01.2016. It was further stated that the offer of possession had already been sent to the complainant vide letter dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure R/1 colly). It was further stated that the complaint has become infructuous as the possession was offered on 08.06.2016. It was further stated that the complainant herself is not taking possession and therefore, she is liable to pay holding charges. It was further stated that the complainant had full knowledge about the executed terms of Agreement. It was further stated that the complainant prayed for unfounded demands, which were not as per executed terms of the Agreement and, thus, the Opposite Parties pray to allow 31% cost escalation of the construction as well 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free as the complainant shall get the possession of the floor on the same price as committed by the Opposite Parties at the time of allotment of the floor on 19.03.2010. It was further stated that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction, ordered by the High Court and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party litigation involving acquisition proceedings of land of litigants therein, in the years 2010 and 2012.

11. As regards present status of the project, it was stated that occupation certificate(s) of 1775 units had already been received and the offer of possession is under process. It was also stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and housekeeping and maintenance services were being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle.

12. In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement; that the complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission; that this Commission cannot adjudicate upon the matter where the prima facie prayers are for modification of clauses of the Agreement and that the complainant is not a consumer as she did not disclose the purpose for which the property was purchased nor did she produce any cogent evidence/document to prove that the said property was for earning her livelihood. Another objection raised in the written statement is that as per Clause 55 in the Agreement, all disputes arising out of the Agreement are to be settled amicably, failing which, they shall be referred to the Arbitration. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties could not be made liable for delay caused due to force majeure conditions, which was on account of stay by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012 and delay in grant of approvals in layout plans and service plans. In Sub Para (g) of Para 10 of preliminary objections, it was stated that approvals regarding revision in layout plan and service plans sought on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, were received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively. Apart from above objections, the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and try the complaint has been challenged on the ground that since the property, in dispute, is situated in Panchkula, which comes within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District, only Courts at Panchkula and Punjab & Haryana High Court have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant complaint.

13. The Opposite Parties also moved miscellaneous applications under Sections 5 and 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the following consumer complaints, for referring the matter to the sole arbitration:-

Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Miscellaneous Application No.
	CC/32/2017	344/2017
	CC/5/2017	271/2017
	CC/33/2017	345/2017
	CC/34/2017	346/2017
	CC/35/2017	347/2017
	CC/36/2017	348/2017
	CC/39/2017	272/2017
	CC/40/2017	273/2017
	CC/55/2017	277/2017
	CC/87/2017	349/2017
	CC/89/2017	351/2017
	C/100/2017	353/2017
	CC/101/2017	354/2017

The aforesaid applications were disposed of by this Commission by holding that the applicability of the arbitration process would be seen at the time of final arguments in the main case.

14. On merits, it was stated that the value of the property as per Schedule of Payment (SOP) was Rs.43,97,939.08 plus service tax for 1475 sq. ft.. It was further stated that after occupancy certificate, due to increase in area from 1475 sq. ft. to 1729 sq. ft., the total price of the property was Rs.50,09,748.52 plus service tax for an area of 1729 sq. ft. It was further stated that in the present case, the increase in area was less than 15% and, as such, the demand for additional area was completely right and justified. It was further stated that till date, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.38,01,294.00 and there is a DLI of Rs.44,462.07 levied against the complainant on account for delay of 406 days. It was admitted that as per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, possession of the allotted unit, was to be handed over to the complainant within 24 months from the signing of the Agreement subject to force majeure conditions or due to reasons beyond the control of Opposite Parties as mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Agreement. It was further stated that delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was delayed on account of force majeure conditions. It was further stated that SLP No.21786-88/2010 was filed, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court stayed the construction activities at the project vide order dated 19.04.2012, which was vacated on 12.12.2012 only. It was further stated that after vacation of stay, the construction work again resumed and, therefore, delay in handing over possession was due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that the demand under the head of ‘Other charges’ was strictly as per Clause 1.11 of the Agreement. It was further stated that further the demand of Rs.1,00,368/- on account of cost of electricity expenditure was in accordance with Clause 23 of the Agreement. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

15. The complainant, in support of her case, submitted her affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

16. The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar, their Authorized Signatory, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

17. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

18. It is evident that initially Sh. Brij Mohan R/o H.No.77, Vill. Mandi, Adampur, Block-1, The. Adampur, Hisar, Haryana, was allotted Independent Floor No.DVF-E4/14-GF#217 in DLF Valley, Panchkula vide allotment letter dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure C-1) and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between him and the Opposite Parties on 06.07.2011 (Annexure C-2). The said unit was then purchased by Sh. Bhag Chand from Sh. Brij Mohan vide endorsement dated 06.05.2013 (at Page 29). Thereafter, the same unit was purchased by the complainant vide endorsement dated 30.08.2014 (at page 28) and letter dated 30.08.2014 confirming transfer of the unit in her (complainant’s) name was also issued on 30.08.2014 (Annexure C-3). The total price of the said independent floor, as depicted in the Agreement, was Rs.38,08,449.75, besides other charges, securities, deposits and taxes etc. as specified in the Application/Agreement. The complainant, in all, actually paid a sum of Rs.38,01,294/- as mentioned in the Chart showing details of the property, in question, placed on record, under the signatures of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, at the time of arguments on 05.05.2017. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. It may be stated here that the Opposite Parties, in similar cases relating to this project, had given an exit option to the complainant(s) in June 2013, in view of stay by Hon’ble Supreme Court, to seek refund alongwith 9% interest or to continue with the allotment by agreeing to extend one year period for delivery of possession. However, in the instant case, no such document has been placed on record to show that any such offer was ever given to the allottee in the year 2013. It is, however, on record, that there was stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, which in turn, delayed the completion of the project. The Opposite Parties have stated that due to above force majeure condition, the possession got delayed. The possession of the unit, in question, has been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant on 08.06.2016 vide offer of possession letter (Annexure R-1 colly) and the instant complaint was filed on 12.01.2017.

19. There is a clear and specific stipulation in Clause 1.2 of the Agreement that price of the unit is escalation free. Since the Opposite Parties failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period and extended one year period, they (Opposite Parties) are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and their prayer for allowing them escalation cost of construction as well as land holding amounts to seeking amendment of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The plea, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

20. Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement, in the instant case, was executed between the parties on 06.07.2011 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), the averment of the Opposite Parties that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained them from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010 (Annexures R-5 and R-6), is not relevant.

The complainant has stated that there is no development as Malba and other construction material are still lying at the site. The reasoning put forth for non-development is not well based. No cogent evidence regarding non-development has been brought on record.

21. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. This question has already been elaborately dealt with by this Commission in case titled ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126. Paras 25 to 35 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“25. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

26. To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;

“3. 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.”

27. It is also desirable to reproduce unamended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, which reads thus:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”

28. Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.

29. In the year 2015, many amendments were effected in the provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act, reads as under:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.”

30. Now it is to be seen, whether, after amendment in Section 8 of the principal Act, any additional right has accrued to the service provider(s), to say that on account of existence of arbitration agreement, for settling the disputes through an Arbitrator, the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, and also of the National Commission, in large number of judgments, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides additional remedy, notwithstanding any other remedy available to a consumer. The said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act/Law.

31. Now, we will have to see what difference has been made by the amendment, in the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act. After amendment, it reads that a Judicial Authority is supposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other Court, unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. The legislation was alive to the ratio of the judgments, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. Vide those judgments, it is specifically mandated that under Section 3 of 1986 Act, an additional remedy is available to the consumer(s), which is not in derogation to any other Act. As and when any argument was raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Commission in the judgments, referred to above, have made it very clear that in the face of Section 8 of 1996 Act and existence of arbitration agreement, it is still opened to the Consumer Foras to entertain the consumer complaints. None of the judgments ever conferred any jurisdiction upon the Consumer Foras to entertain such like complaints. Only the legal issues, as existed in the Statute Book, were explained vide different judgments. If we look into amended provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act, it explains that judicial Authority needs to refer dispute, in which arbitration agreement exist to settle the disputes notwithstanding any judgment/decree or order of any Court. That may be true where in a case, some order has been passed by any Court, making arbitration Agreement non-applicable to a dispute/parties. However, in the present case, the above said argument is not available. The jurisdiction of Consumer Foras to entertain consumer complaints, in the face of arbitration clause in the Agreement, is in-built in 1986 Act. It was not given to these Foras, by any judgment ever. The provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act interpreted vide judgments vis a vis Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act, were known to the legislature, when the amended Act 2015 was passed. If there was any intention on the part of the legislature, then it would have been very conveniently provided that notwithstanding any remedy available in 1986 Act, it would be binding upon the judicial Authority to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, in case of existence of arbitration agreement, however, it was not so said.

32. We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/traders. As in the present case, the complainant has spent his life savings to get a unit, for his residential purpose. His hopes were shattered. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- (in the present case Rs.4000/-). As per the mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party. In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of Arbitrator’s fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act.

33. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. As stated above, in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire life earnings to purchase the plot, in the said project, launched by the opposite party. However, his hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of the sale consideration, he failed to get possession of the plot, in question, in a developed project. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

34. Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

35. In view of the above, the plea taken by the opposite party, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected.”

In view of the above, the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

22. Another objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that as per Clause 55 of the Agreement, the Courts at Panchkula alone and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It was stated that since the property, in question, is situated in District Panchkula and a part of cause of action arose at Panchkula. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to her. Clearly, application for allotment of Unit (Annexure R-3, at Page 101 of written statement) was made by the complainant at Chandigarh address viz. Shop No.101-102, Ist Floor, DLF City Centre Mall, Rajiv Gandhi, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh. Allotment letter dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure C-1) also bore the same address at the top, meaning thereby the allotment letter was also issued by the Kishangar Address of the Opposite Parties. Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties on 06.07.2011 at Chandigarh. Since, as per documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.

23. In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to her, to file the complaint. The submission of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

24. The next objection raised by Counsel for Opposite Parties was that the complainant has made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify/ rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the complainant was virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the present complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the flat, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of Opposite Parties, they were to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of twenty four months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines ‘service’ as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

25. From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has the remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by her, as she falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as stated above. In the instant case, the complainant is seeking relief on account of violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement by the Opposite Parties and their deficiency in rendering service. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainant is trying to rewrite/modify the terms of the Agreement. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

26. To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that since the complainant had purchased the flat, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, she would not fall within the definition of ‘consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. 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 the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 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. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

“In the case of the purchase of the house which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. First Appeal No.1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

27. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there is delay in offering/delivering possession of the flat, in question. Clauses 11(a) & 11(b) of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 06.07.2011 read thus:-

“11(a) Schedule for possession of the said Independent Floor:-

The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of twenty four (24) months from the date of execution of the Agreement unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force majeure conditions and due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of Allottee to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

11(b) Delay due to reasons beyond the control of the company:-

If the possession of the Said Independent Floor is delayed due to Force Majeure conditions, then the company shall be entitled to extension of time for delivery of possession of the said Independent Floor. The company during the continuance of the Force Majeure reserves the right to alter or vary the terms and conditions of the agreement or if the circumstances so warrant, the company may also suspend the development for such period as is considered expedient and the allottee shall have no right to raise any claim compensation of any nature whatsoever for or with regard to such suspension.”

As stated above, according to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). In the event of failure to deliver possession, as per Clause 15 of the Agreement, the complainant was entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also admitted that above fact of granting stay resulted into delay in construction at the site.

28. Though in similar cases of this project, the Opposite Parties have been taking benefit of one year on account of stay by Hon’ble Apex court from April 2012 to December 2012 but in the instant case, no exit option is available on record. The Opposite Parties have specifically pleaded that there was stay by the Hon’ble Apex court, which in turn delayed the project. In view of this, the two years period stipulated in the Agreement and one year extended period on account of stay by the Hon’ble Apex Court, expired in July 2014 on 05.07.2014. No justification whatsoever for delay in offering possession beyond 05.07.2014 has been explained by the Opposite Parties. The argument of the Opposite Parties that delay in handing over possession of independent floor was attributable due to delay in receiving statutory approvals from the competent authorities, the same being absolutely beyond its control, is not tenable. The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 06.07.2011 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Parties ought to have obtained all the approvals. If permissions/approvals for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, approvals for which were also received in due course of time, the initial time taken (more than two years) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Since the complainant is a subsequent allottee and she executed an undertaking not to claim compensation on account of delayed possession, the delay in her case would be from the date, she furnished the undertaking/date on which the unit, in question, was transferred in her name. Possession of the unit, in question, having been offered vide offer of possession letter dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure R-1 colly.), clearly, there is inordinate delay in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainant. Delay in offering possession to the complainant is an act of clear deficiency of Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are bound to remove the deficiencies/snags, if any, in the construction of the unit, in question, and deliver the possession to the complainant, after deposit of amount by her (complainant).

29. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, whether the demands raised in possession letter dated 08.06.2016 were justified. While offering possession vide letter dated 08.06.2016, the Opposite Parties raised demand in the sum of Rs.12,17,289.13 besides Rs.90,859.00 account of IBMS & CAM charges. As per stipulation in the offer of possession letter, the complainant was required to deposit the amount towards various demands within 30 days and upon her doing so, possession was to be delivered by the Opposite Parties. Though this Commission vide order dated 16.01.2017 directed the complainant to deposit the amount of demand raised vide offer of possession letter dated 08.06.2016 within four weeks from the date of the said order and also directed the Opposite Parties to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within four weeks thereafter, yet, as admitted by Counsel for the parties, neither the amount towards demand raised vide offer of possession letter dated 08.06.2016 was deposited with the Opposite Parties nor the requisite documents submitted. The demands raised are as under:-

1.(a)	Basic Sale Price	Rs.1,72,166.11
	EDC (External Development Charges)	Rs.1,05,454.77
	IDC (Internal Development Charges)	Rs.1,876.00
(b)	Change in Area & PLC	Rs.5,96,900.00
	Service Tax	Rs.34,608.00
II.	Other charges vide clause 1.11 of the Floor Buyers Agreement @Rs.91.30 per sq. ft.	Rs.80,440.00
	Service Tax (as applicable)	Rs.12,066.00
III.	Electricity, Water and Sewerage charges as per relevant clause of the Floor Buyer’s Agreement. (a)Proportionate cost of electricity expenditure @Rs.58.05 per sq. ft.	Rs.1,00,368.00
	(b)Electrical Meter and Connection charges to individual floor/unit Rs.30,497.00 per unit.	Rs.30,497.00
	Service Tax @15.00%	Rs.19,630.00
IV.	Contingent Deposit for VAT @Rs.14.55 per sq. ft.	Rs.25,157.00
V.a)	Club Charges (50% of membership Fees)	Rs.15,000.00
	Service Tax @14.50%	Rs.2,250.00
b)	Club Security Deposit	Rs.20,000.00

	Balance Payable by Gunjan Agarwal in favour of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.	Rs.12,17,289.13
VII.	Interest Bearing Maintenance Security & CAM Charges.
(a)	Interest Bearing Maintenance Security (IBMS) @Rs.50/- per sq. ft.	Rs.86,450.00
(b)	1 Quarter Advance CAM @Rs.0.85 per sq. ft. per month.	Rs.4,409.00
	Total Payable by Gunjan Agarwal in favour of Valley Residents Welfare Society	Rs.90,859.00
VIII.	Stamp Duty, Registration Charges & Others	Rs.2,42,428.00

30. Out of the above, the major amount is towards increase in area of independent floor. The complainant in Para 8 of the complaint has stated that the Opposite Parties unilaterally increased the area without the consent of the complainant, which is a clear misuse of Clause 10 of the Agreement. Admittedly, the complainant was duly informed about the increase in area while offering possession, vide letter dated 08.06.2016, that the demand raised by the Opposite Parties, included Rs.5,96,900/- on account of change in area as per clauses No.1.10 for PLC and 10 for change in area as per Floor Buyer’s Agreement. The next major demand in the sum of Rs.2,42,428/- was on account of stamp duty & registration charges. Regarding increase in area, the Opposite Parties relying upon Clause 10 of the Agreement, have stated that if there was an increase/decrease of more than 15% in the saleable area of the independent floor, then, only the Opposite Parties will intimate the complainant(s)/ allottee(s) in writing and obtain his/her consent. It has been stated that the total increase in the saleable area in the instant case being less than 15%, the Opposite Parties were not bound to seek any consent of the complainant/allottee. It may be stated here that saleable area of the unit, in question, as per the Agreement was 1475 sq. ft. While offering possession, in the final statement of account, annexed with the possession letter dated 08.06.2016, it was mentioned that the final area of the unit was 1729 sq. ft. Thus, there was increase of 254 sq. ft. When compared with the original area of the unit viz. 1475 sq. ft., the increase is more than 15%. The complainant came to know about change in the area when possession was offered to her on 08.06.2016. In case, the complainant had any grievance regarding increase in area, in terms of Clause 10 of the Agreement, she could raise objections to the changes within 30 days from the date of notice of changes. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant raised any objection during the period of 30 days or till filing of the complaint on 12.01.2017. The complainant has also not adduced any evidence by way of report of an Engineer/Architect that increase in area did not exist. The demand raised by the Opposite Parties to this effect, is, thus, legal and tenable and the complainant is liable to pay the same.

31. As regards demand for stamp-duty and registration charges in the sum of Rs.2,42,428/-, in all fairness, the Opposite parties ought to have raised this demand after delivering possession. No doubt, possession of the unit, in question, has been offered to the complainant. Physical possession shall be delivered after the complainant deposits the amount. The sale deed is to be executed after delivery of possession. Therefore, the actual expenditure for registration of sale deed besides stamp duty and registration charges, shall be borne by the complainant at the time of registration/execution of sale deed. The Opposite Parties are also not pressing for stamp duty and registration charges before delivering possession. Not only this, vide this Commission order dated 16.01.2017, complainant was not asked to deposit stamp duty and registration charges and also contingent deposit of vat.

32. The other demands are on account of other charges i.e. Rs.1,57,391/- @Rs.91.03 per sq. ft; proportionate cost of electricity expenditure @Rs.58.05 per sq. ft. to the tune of Rs.1,00,368/-; electrical meter and connection charges to the floor in the sum of Rs.30,497/- per unit, contingent deposit of VAT @Rs.14.55 per sq. ft. in the sum of Rs.25,157/-; club charges in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and club security deposit in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties vehemently argued that all these charges are in accordance with terms and conditions of the Agreement only. It may be stated here that at internal page 6 of the Agreement, it was stipulated that the total price was to be calculated on the basis of saleable area of the floor in question, which did not include other amounts, charges, security amount etc., which are payable by the allottee, as and when demanded by the Company in accordance with the terms of the application/agreement, for instance:-

IBMS.
Additional IDC/EDC, wealth tax, government rates, tax on land, fees or levies of all and any kind of whatever name called on the said project, and
Maintenance charges, additional PLC, property tax, municipal tax on the said independent floor, and
Charges for any additional parking space(s) other than the parking space(s) which will be charged at the then prevailing rate and will be offered subject to availability, and
Stamp duty, registration and incidental charges as well as expenses for execution of the Agreement and conveyance deed (which are to be borne and paid by the allottee); and
Taxes; and
Club charges;
Power back up charges, as applicable; and
The proportionate cost of installation of equipments for procuring and supplying electricity, cost for electric and water meter as well as charges for water and electricity connection/consumption; and
Any other charges that may be payable by the allottee as per the other terms of the Agreement and such other charges as may be demanded by the Company.

Besides, as per Clause 1.11 of the Buyer’s Agreement, the complainant agreed that in addition to total price, the complainant shall be liable to pay all taxes as stipulated therein. Further from perusal of application form annexed by the Opposite Parties alongwith its written statement, it clearly transpires that 5% of Total Price + IBMS + Club + Registration + Stamp Duty + Other Charges, if any, were payable at the time of offer of possession. Thus, clearly, the amount towards demand qua Basic Sale Price (Rs.1,72,166.11), External Development Charges (Rs.1,05,454.77) and Internal Development Charges (Rs.1,876.00), being justified, is payable by the complainant.

33. It was agreed by the counsel for the Opposite Parties that demand raised on account of contingent deposit of Vat in the sum of Rs.25,157/- shall be payable by the complainant, as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.

34. Thus, in view of above, offer of possession and demand(s) raised on account of different components are in accordance with terms and conditions of the Agreement. Therefore, except stamp duty, registration charges and contingent deposit of vat, the complainant should have made payment of the amount towards other components of demand to the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days or at best, could take another 30 days grace period. Since the demand raised, has, by and large, been held to be justified, the complainant shall not be entitled to compensation for delay beyond the date of offer of possession i.e. 08.06.2016, plus two months i.e. (30 days given in the offer of possession letter + 30 days grace period), i.e. up to 07.08.2016.

35. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period of 24 months and extended period of 12 months on account of force majeure conditions. As stated above, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties did not deliver possession within 24 months as stipulated in Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and thereafter within extended period of 12 months, from execution of the Agreement on 06.07.2011 i.e. by 05.07.2014. The complainant is a subsequent allottee, the unit having been transferred in her name on 30.08.2014. At the time of transfer of unit in her name, she (complainant) executed an undertaking (at Page 253 of the written statement of Opposite Parties), duly notarized on 07.08.2014. Paras 3 & 4 of her undertaking being relevant read thus:-

““3. I undertake that I am not entitled for any compensation/claims on account of delay possession of the said Independent Floor as agreed upon the First Allottee and all the relevant paras in this regard in the Application form/Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement become null and void.

4. I undertake that I am satisfied themselves with all the aspects concerning the substitution of the Floor in their name and the I hereby undertakes not to hold the company responsible and liable in the event any discrepancy of whatsoever nature is noticed in any of the documents at a later date.”

Under similar circumstances, an undertaking was given by the complainant in Complaint No.71 of 2016 titled Lt. Col. Naveen Suri Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., which was decided alongwith other complaints vide order passed in Complaint Case No.54 of 2016 titled Hari Ram Dangra & Anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Decided on 25.07.2016, wherein this Commission in Para 46 held as under:-

“46. Perusal of contents of the aforesaid undertaking, however, reveal as if the unit was ready for possession, whereas, the fact is otherwise and the possession was offered only on 14.01.2016 (Annexure C-6). The complainant in that case apparently furnished the undertaking under the impression that possession of the unit, in question, would be handed over to him immediately. Such an undertaking by no stretch of imagination would mean that complainant was not entitled to compensation for delay after the date of undertaking. Therefore, from the date of undertaking/date when unit was transferred in his name i.e. 27.03.2015, till possession is handed over to the complainant, he (complainant) is entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% per annum on the deposited amount.”

The unit omeHomwas transferred in the name of the complainant on 30.08.2014 (at Page 203 of the written statement of the Opposite Parties). Therefore, she would be entitled to compensation for delay in possession w.e.f. 31.08.2014. The complainant has, however, claimed compensation by way of grant of interest on the deposited amount w.e.f. January 2015. As already stated above, possession of the unit, in question, was offered by the Opposite Parties on 08.06.2016. As stated above, clearly there is delay in offering possession on account of which, the complainant deserves to be compensated. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Shri Suman Nandi & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr., Complaint No.277 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2015, held in Para 16 as under:-

“16. On perusal of the Buyer’s Agreement and the affidavits filed by the parties it is clear that the complainants had booked the subject apartments on the expressed promise extended by the opposite parties that subject to Force Majeure, the opposite parties would deliver the possession of the apartments complete in all respect within 30-36 months, as the case may be, of the execution of the Buyers Agreement and being influenced by the said promise the complainants entered into the contract. No doubt in the Buyer’s Agreement some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind for which clause 4.a. for compensating the complainants for delay was incorporated but it does not mean that the intention was that even in the event of inordinate delay in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainants would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view clause 4.a. was meant for computing compensation in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession. If the argument of the opposite party is to be accepted, it would lead to absurd situation and would give an unfair advantage to the unscrupulous builder who might utilize the consideration amount meant to finance the project by the buyer for his other business venture at nominal interest of 2-3 per cent as against much higher bank lending rates. This could never be the intention of legislation that if such a proposition is accepted, it would result in defeating the object of Consumer Protection Act.”

The National Commission granted 12% interest as compensation from the date of default in delivery of possession.

36. Recently in Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order read thus:-

“8. If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2) The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.

(3) No separate compensation would be payable to the complainants either towards the rent if any paid by them or for the mental agony and harassment which they have suffered on account of the failure of the opposite party to perform its contractual obligation.”

No doubt, in the Buyer’s Agreement, some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating the complainant for delay, but it does not mean that the intention was that even in the event of inordinate delay, in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainant would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month, which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view, Clauses 11(a) and 15 were meant for computing compensation, in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession.

37. Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, and position stated above, grant of compensation in the form of simple interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, w.e.f. 01.01.2015 (as prayed) till the date of offer of possession of the unit i.e. 08.06.2016 plus 2 months (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period), would meet the ends of justice.

38. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to her, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to her, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date in the Agreement or immediately after she furnished the undertaking on 07.08.2014 and transfer of unit in her favour on 30.08.2014. Admittedly, the possession of unit, in question, has been offered to the complainant on 08.06.2016. The complainant has been adequately compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period as stated above. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainant shall also get the benefit of escalation in price of the unit. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- would serve the ends of justice. Under these circumstances, the complainant is held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. In view of grant of aforesaid reliefs, we are not inclined to grant compensation for alleged loss suffered by the complainant in paying rent @Rs.15,000/- per month.

39. Similarly, in following 8 complaints bearing No.33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 55, 87 and 100 all of 2017, particulars of which are indicated in Table below, the possession of the unit(s) was offered by the Opposite Parties on the dates indicated against the respective complaints:-

TABLE

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period	Date on which possession offered	Whether amount and documents deposited after offer of possession.	Whether documents submitted	DLI (Rs.)
A.	B.	C.	D.	E.	F	G	H
1.	33/2017	27.01.2011	26.01.2014	08.06.2016	Yes on 15.03.2017	Pending	55,002.38
2.	34/2017	28.01.2011	27.01.2014	26.10.2016	Not paid	-do-	-
3.	35/2017	06.01.2011	05.01.2014	15.11.2016	Not paid (Reminder to make payment sent on 02.05.2017)	-do-	-
4.	36/2017	20.12.2010	19.12.2013	15.11.2016	Yes on 13.03.2017	-do-	-
5.	40/2017	03.02.2011	02.02.2014	05.10.2016	Yes, entire amount paid	-do-	-
6.	55/2017	14.02.2011	13.02.2014	26.10.2016	Yes on 21.02.2017	-do-	Rs.53,671.54
7.	87/2017	25.11.2010	24.11.2013	26.10.2016	Yes. Last payment made on 27.02.2017	-do-	-
8.	100/2017	11.04.2011	10.04.2014	05.10.2016	Yes on 09.02.2017	-do-	-

In the aforesaid complaint cases, except complaint bearing No.33 of 2017, as per offer of possession letter(s) placed, on record, six months’ time was given to the complainant(s) to complete the formalities and make the payment.

40. Ms. Ekta Jhanji and Sh. Parveen Jain, Advocates, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on instructions, stated that in case, the complainants are eager to get possession, they will complete formalities and deposit the amount (wherever pending) before the period of six months and as and when amount is deposited and necessary documents are submitted, within 3 weeks thereafter, possession will be handed over, to the complainant(s). It was further stated that contingent Vat deposit need not be deposited at this stage, subject to furnishing of an affidavit by the complainant(s) to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. In cases relating to this project, earlier the Opposite Parties, at the time of offering possession, as has been done in Complaint Cases No.32 & 33 of 2017 were also raising demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges but now while offering possession, no demand on account of stamp duty and registration charges, except in Complaint Cases No.32 & 33 of 2017, has been raised.

41. Out of aforesaid eight complaints, as stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, during arguments, in six complaints bearing Nos.33, 36, 40, 55, 87 & 100 all of 2017, amount(s), demand(s) whereof was raised vide offer of possession letters, minus contingent deposit of vat, stood deposited by the complainant(s), in terms of interim orders passed by this Commission in these complaints. However, in two complaints bearing Nos.34 & 35 both of 2017, no amount towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letters has been deposited by the complainant(s). Moreover, in all the above eight complaints, the requisite documents have not been submitted by the complainant(s).

42. In Complaint No.36 of 2017, Counsel for the complainant submitted, during arguments, that the Opposite Parties before delivering possession were also insisting upon the complainant to execute a letter that he (complainant) was not in a position to get the sale deed of the unit, in question, registered/executed. It may be stated here that after delivery of possession, the complainant has a right to get the sale deed executed/registered and, therefore, the complainant is not required to submit such a document/undertaking. The Opposite Parties are directed not to seek such a document.

43. In Complaint No.40 of 2017, as stated by the Counsel for the complainants, an excess amount of Rs.95,834/- has been deposited with the Opposite Parties, vide cheque No.050377 dated 25.10.2016. The aforesaid amount of Rs.95,834/- shall be refunded by the Opposite Parties to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order or the complainants shall have an option to get the same adjusted against the stamp duty and registration charges.

44. In complaint No.100 of 2017, at Sr. No.7 in above table, it was pointed out by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that an amount of Rs.600/- remained to be paid by the complainant(s) to the Opposite Parties.

45. In complaint No.33 of 2017 (at Sr. No.1 in Table-I), in which, possession of the unit, in question, was offered on 08.06.2016, demand on account of stamp duty & registration charges was also raised. In terms of this Commission order dated 16.01.2017, the complainants were asked to deposit the amount towards demand so raised except stamp duty & registration charges and contingent deposit of vat. The complainants deposited the amount accordingly on 15.03.2017.

46. It was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the snags/deficiencies, if any, will be removed, before delivering possession.

47. Therefore, in all aforesaid complaints, the complainants are entitled to compensation by way of grant of 12% interest, for the delayed period, (after two years + one year extended period) up-to the date of offer of possession plus 2 months (30 days for making payment + 30 days grace period), as under:-

TABLE - II

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of offer of possession	Date up-to which entitled to compensation
1.	33/2017	08.06.2016	07.08.2016
2.	34/2017	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
3.	35/2017	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
4.	36/2017	15.11.2016	14.01.2017
5.	40/2017	05.10.2016	04.12.2016
6.	55/2017	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
7.	87/2017	26.10.2016	25.12.2016
8.	100/2017	05.10.2016	04.12.2016

48. If after deposit of amount minus contingent deposit of vat and submission of requisite documents, possession is not delivered, for delay beyond 30 days, the complainants shall be further entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount.

49. In four consumer complaint bearing No.5, 39, 89 and 101 all of 2017, particulars of which are given hereunder, possession of the unit(s), in question, stands delivered to the complainants, in terms of interim orders passed by this Commission, after deposit of the amounts, towards demands raised vide offer of possession letters, minus the demand qua component of contingent deposit of vat. This was admitted by the Counsel for the parties during arguments.

TABLE-III

Sr. No.	Complaint No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Due date for possession after 2 years plus 1 year extended period	Date on which possession offered.	Date on which possession taken	Compensation, if any, credited. (Rs.)	DLI if any (Rs.)	Whether snags exist in the unit.
1.	5/2017	28.12.2010	27.12.2013	15.11.2016	31.03.2017	-	-	Yes
2.	39/2017	02.12.2010	01.12.2013	15.11.2016	10.02.2017	6,30,925.00	-	Yes
3.	89/2017	21.01.2011	20.01.2014	15.11.2016	14.04.2017	-	-	Yes
4.	101/2017	10.02.2011	09.02.2014	26.10.2016	12.04.2017	-	54,745.97	-

50. Qua complaint bearing No.101 of 2017, mentioned at Sr. No.4, in the above table, though in the chart submitted by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, there is no mention of taking over of possession by the complainant but, it was stated by counsel for both the parties, during arguments, that possession of the unit, in question, stood delivered to the complainant on 12.04.2017, after receipt of amount towards the demand raised vide offer of possession letter, on 09.02.2017.

51. Therefore, in above four complaints, complainants are held entitled to compensation @12% p.a. interest for the delay period, after 2 years plus 1 year extended period, up-to + 2 months from the date of offer of possession.

52. The complainant(s) in the aforesaid complaints, are also entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in rendering service.

53. In Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.5, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 87, 89 & 100 all of 2017, the complainants are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each case, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.

54. However, in Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.33, 55 & 101 all of 2017, there has been DLI in the sum of Rs.55,002.38, Rs.53,671.54 & Rs.54,745.97 respectively, against the complainants. Delay in payment of installments partly contributes to delay in completion of unit. Therefore, the complainants, in these case, are not entitled to same amount of compensation. Grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, in each case, would served the ends of justice.

55. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, in all the cases.

56. For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.32, 5, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 55, 87, 89, 100 and 101 all of 2017 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 55, 87 and 100 all of 2017

In these cases, the Opposite Parties have offered possession in October 2016 and November 2016, (except complaints bearing Nos.32 & 33 both of 2017, in which possession was offered on 08.06.2016). The amount towards demand raised, except the demands towards, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges stands deposited by the complainants in all the above cases, except complaints bearing Nos.34 & 35 both of 2017. The Opposite Parties shall hand over possession after removing the snags, if any, within 30 days.

The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date balance payment, wherever due, is made/documents are completed by the complainant(s).
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), with effect from 01.01.2015, 27.01.2014, 28.01.2014, 06.01.2014, 20.12.2013, 03.02.2014, 14.02.2014, 25.11.2013 & 11.04.2014 respectively up-till two months from the date of offer of possession i.e. up-to 07.08.2016, 07.08.2016, 25.12.2016, 14.01.2017, 14.01.2017, 04.12.2016, 25.12.2016, 25.12.2016 & 04.12.2016 respectively, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization. For failure of Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment by the complainants, for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10^th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.
(iv)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case i.e. [in CC Nos.32, 34, 35, 36, 40, 87 & 100 all of 2017], and Rs.1,25,000/-, in each case, i.e. [in CC Nos.33 & 55 both of 2017] on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, in each case, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

5, 39, 89 and 101 all of 2017.

In these case, possession of the units, in question, stand handed over to the complainants.

The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are, jointly and severally held liable and directed as under:-

(i)

Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).

(ii)

To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s), with effect from 28.12.2013, 02.12.2013, 21.01.2014 & 10.02.2014 respectively till 14.01.2017, 14.01.2017, 14.01.2017 & 25.12.2016 respectively, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.

[In CC No.39 of 2017, compensation in the sum of Rs.6,30,925/- on account of delay in possession has been credited in Final Statement of Account. The same shall be deducted from the compensation amount by way of interest @12% for delay period]

For failure of Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment by the complainant(s), for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, till the date possession was delivered, shall be payable within 45 days and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.

(iii)

Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case, i.e. [in CC Nos.5, 39 & 89 all of 2017] and Rs.1,25,000/- [in CC No.101 of 2017], on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/-, in each case, as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

57. In all these complaints, as agreed between the parties, the Advocate Charges shall not be charged by the Opposite Parties. The actual expenditure for registration of Sale Deed(s) besides Stamp duty and Registration charges, shall, however, be borne by the complainant(s).

58. As regards the amount of contingent Vat deposit, the complainant(s) shall furnish an affidavit to make the payment as and when demanded by the Government. The complainant(s) shall deposit amount of contingent vat within three weeks from the date the same is paid by Opposite Parties to the Government and the complainant(s) are informed of this fact. Delay beyond three weeks from the receipt of notice shall attract simple interest @12% per annum.

59. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.5, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 55, 87, 89, 100 and 101 all of 2017.

60. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

61. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

17.05.2017

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/32/2017

Kavita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gorav Kathuria, Adv.

17 May 2017

ORDER

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