Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/190/2016

Kabir Sarin - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	190 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2016

 

1. Kabir Sarin s/o late Mr.Ranjit Lal Sarin, # 48, Sector 4, Chandigarh – 160001.

 

2. Gyan Anjan Kaur w/o Kabir Sarin, r/o # 48, Sector 4, Chandigarh – 160001.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, #10, Local Shopping Complex, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019 through its Managing Director /Principal Officer.
2. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, SCO No.139-140, 1st Floor, Sector 8C, Chandigarh U.T. – 160008 through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh.  Kabir Sarin, complainant No.1 in person and on behalf of complainant No.2.

Sh.  Munish Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that lured by the open proclamation of the Opposite Parties through local newspapers and various advertisements, the complainants approached Opposite Party No.2 at Chandigarh and shown their willingness to register for allotment of a residential plot measuring 300 sq. yards in the proposed residential project. The complainants duly submitted application dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure C-1) and also paid an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. The said amount was approximately 45% of the Basic Sale Price as contrary to the payment plan, which required only 25% of the Basic Sale Price to be cleared at the time of booking. The complainants opted for Down Payment Plan, as per which, 25% of the BSP was to be paid at the time of booking, another 15% of the BSP at the time of allotment, another 55% of the BSP within 30 days from the time of allotment and finally, residual payment of 5% of BSP was to be paid at the time of possession only. The complainants received correspondence dated 25.05.2011, vide which the Opposite Parties claimed to have provisionally allotted a residential plot to the complainants and asked the complainants to clear the additional amount of Rs.8,10,000/- in order to complete 40% payment towards the BSP on or before 30.06.2011. The complainants refused to clear the said amount, which was completely contrary to the payment plan and instead made numerous visits to the office of the Opposite Parties seeking clarification. Copy of correspondence dated 25.05.2011 is Annexure C-2. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties sent letters dated 07.06.2011 and 22.07.2011 (Annexure C-3), vide which, they demanded further amount of Rs.32,400/-.  Subsequently, vide letter dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure C-5), the Opposite Parties informed that residential Plot bearing No.864 measuring approximately 300 sq. yards was provisionally allotted to the complainants. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties illegally retained over 45% of the BSP for almost a year, without having executed any binding contract between the parties. It was further stated that the complainants again received another demand of Rs.13,57,486/- and illegally demanded additional amount of Rs.80,000/- vide letter dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure C-6). The complainants were left with no other alternative but to clear the said payment of Rs.13,57,486/- vide receipt dated 10.01.2012 (at page No.90 of the file). It was further stated that after a lot of persuasion, the Opposite Parties forwarded copy of the allotment letter to the complainants, who upon receipt, visited the office of the Opposite Parties and signed the same in duplicate on 15.01.2012 (Annexure C-7). It was further stated that the complainants only received the complete and legal copy of the allotment letter finally on 28.05.2012, which was approximately delayed by 2 ½ years from the booking ; 6 months from provisional allotment and 5 months from part execution of allotment letter (Annexure C-8).

2.              As per clause 24(a) of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was required to be given within 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or within an extendable period of 6 months from the date of signing of the allotment letter subject to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that the Agreement was finally executed on 25.05.2012, as such, the complainants were entitled to get possession of the said unit not later than 25.05.2014 positively. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties unilaterally and without consent of the complainants, sent letter dated 26.07.2014 (Annexure C-9), whereby, they altered the allotment of the complainants and in lieu of the allotted plot No.864, they (complainants) were re-allotted an alternate plot No.575 having an area of 301.39 sq. yards. Thereafter, the complainants visited the office of the Opposite Parties and sought a reasonable explanation and they were made aware that the earlier allotted plot suffered from acquisition issues and was not in the possession of the Opposite Parties, hence they were constrained to take such actions without consent. The complainants had no form of remedial action and hence accepted the said amendment/modification to the said allotment. Vide letter dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure C-10), the Opposite Parties informed the complainants that possession of the plot, in question, is ready and raised a demand of residual sale price alongwith External Development Charges (EDC), club costs, IFMS, Power Back etc. to be paid by the complainants within 15 days, in order to complete the formalities of the alleged offer of possession. The complainants visited the residential plot in the month of February, 2016 and were shocked to see that the said residential plot is approximately five feet below the actual road level, which has neither been rectified to ensure structural stability on any future construction, which is prone to flooding etc. There is no provision of water, electricity & sewerage at the said residential plot. There exists no road connecting the residential plot and the same is nothing but left over construction material thrown upon open and barren land, as depicted from the photographs (Annexure C-11). It was further stated that after numerous reminders  and persistent follow ups alongwith having cleared 95% of the payment towards BSP in January, 2012, the complainants were constrained to issue letter dated 02.03.2016  (Annexure C-12), whereby, they called upon the Opposite Parties to fix a mutual date/time to visit the site, in question, to determine and resolve issues qua levelling and infrastructure, provide a copy of the completion certificate and determine payment of penal interest on delayed payments and the Opposite Parties did not reply to the said letter. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to furnish completion certificate issued by the competent authority as evidence of completion of all developmental and infrastructural works as required. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were usurping the complainants capital and instead had they launched a fixed deposit scheme, wherein, interest @11.5 – 12.5% on deposits are paid (Annexure C-13) and, therefore, the complainants are also entitled to such interest alongwith compensation for the period of delay. It was further stated that the complainants had made the complete payment towards the sale consideration, as per the demand of the Opposite Parties, and the complainants were never informed about the actual site, as apparently the work at the site had been slowed down  to snails pace as most of the residential units have been sold. The complainants were faced with utmost shock and dismay as they would be facing huge financial losses and was constrained to approach the office of the Opposite Parties to seek clarifications on the expected delay but the same remained futile, as no logical or rational answer was ever provided. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

3.           The Opposite Parties, in their written version, have stated that the complainants did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they are interested in interest upon their investment and not interested in the residential plot and, thus, not consumers. It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the project is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District SAS Nagar. It was further stated that the payment plan opted by the complainants after going through all the relevant documents and with their own sweet will and, therefore, it could not be said that the same was meant only to extract payments. It was further stated that the complainants were very well aware at the time of booking that draw of lots is to be carried out after substantial bookings received by the Opposite Parties and, accordingly, the complainants were informed vide letter dated 19.11.2011 regarding the draw of lots and plot bearing No.864 was allotted to the complainants. The demand of Rs.13,57,486/- was demanded as per the agreed payment plan opted by the complainants and Rs.80,000/- mentioned in the demand were not demanded in toto. The said additional cost is duly detailed in the Agreement (Annexure C-8) entered into between the parties.  It was further stated that the execution of the Buyer’s Agreement was delayed by the complainants themselves and at no point of time any agitation from the complainants was made regarding any negotiations qua the Agreement, in question. It was further stated that the clause regarding possession is duly detailed in Clause 24 and it is submitted that the same further provides for exclusion of Sundays, Bank Holidays etc. and said part is also to be read for the purpose of arriving at the final date of possession. It was further stated that the development of the project has been at its full pace and the complainants were apprised from time to time and they did not raise any protest at any point of time. It was further stated that the change of plot number was made as per the agreed terms and conditions incorporated in the Agreement and the same could not be said to be unilateral. The change was made in order to provide expeditious possession to the complainants, which has already been done, as they have been offered possession vide letter dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure C-10). The complainants are liable to pay EDC, Club Costs, IFMS, Power Back up etc., which is as per agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that plot is ready for possession and, therefore, non making of payment by the complainants shows that the complainants were not ready and willing to take possession and make payment of the balance dues. It was further stated that as per demand letter dated 19.02.2016, infrastructure cess/cost (levied by Government) has  been  demanded, which  is part of the agreed terms

and conditions and payable to the Government, therefore, the complainants could not be allowed to escape from the same. The complainants have already been apprised of the said components like power back equipment cost, electrical substation cost, dual source energy metr, utility cost etc., however, they instead of making payments, have opted to enter into litigation. It was further stated that the plot is ready for possession and all the facilities i.e. water, electricity, sewerage etc. are existing and available at the spot and road connectivity is very well existing at the pot and no construction material has been thrown upon open/barren land. It was further stated that the main road connecting the project is also in perfect condition and minor wear and tear in the developing stage, could not be made a ground to raise hue and cry.  It was further stated that question of any penal interest on delayed payment or on account of mental and physical harassment did not arise, once the possession of the unit has already been offered.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           We have heard the complainant No.1 in person and Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

6.           It is evident on record that the complainants applied for a plot in ‘Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’ vide application (Annexure C-1).  It is also evident from Annexure – B (PART-III) (at page No.132 of the file) that the complainants opted Plan B : Additional Discount Payment Plan, which is extracted hereunder :-

ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT PAYMENT PLAN
At the time of Booking	25% of BSP
At the time of Allotment	15% of BSP
Within 30 days of Allotment	55% of BSP ++ 50% of Additional Cost + 100% of PLC (if any).
On offer of possession	5% of BSP + 50% of Additional charges + Stamp Duty + Registration Charges + Other Costs (if any).

 

As per the payment plan, 25% of the BSP was to be deposited by the complainants at the time of booking. In the present case, the complainants initially paid an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- at the time of booking, in respect of the plot, in question, vide receipt dated 13.12.2010 (at page No.82 of the file) i.e. more than 25% of the BSP. It is the admitted fact that vide letter dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure C-5), the Opposite Parties informed that residential plot bearing No.864 measuring 300 sq. yards was provisionally allotted to the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.13,57,447/- vide receipt dated 10.01.2012 (at page No.90 of the file). Thus, the complainants paid the total payment of Rs.27,07,445/- in respect of the plot, in question i.e. in accordance with the payment plan opted by them. It is also the admitted fact that as per letter dated 26.07.2014 (Annexure C-9), the Opposite Parties re-allotted an alternate plot No.575 having an area of 301.39 sq. yards in their project. The allotment letter was signed by the complainants on 28.05.2012 (Annexure C-8). As per Clause 24(a) of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was to be completed within 18 months or within an extended period of six months, from the date of signing of the allotment letter, subject to force majeure conditions. However, the Opposite Parties despite receipt of the huge amount from the complainants, failed to give possession of the plot, complete in all respects, to the complainants, well within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the allotment letter.

7.           The first point for consideration before us is as to whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not. On this point, Counsel for the Opposite Parties stated that since the project of the Opposite Parties is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and is well within the territorial jurisdiction of District SAS Nagar, as such, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 

              According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction, whereof a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, the receipts dated 13.12.2010  & 10.01.2012 (at page Nos.82 & 90 of the file), letters/documents (Annexures C-2 to C-6, C-9 & C-10), were sent by Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties, as the same had the address “Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Office Address : SCO 143-144, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160008” and in some of the documents the address of the Opposite Parties shows as “SCO 139-140, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Mahya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008.” Not only this, round stamp on the allotment letter dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure C-8) clearly reveals “Omaxe Chandigarh Extn. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh”.  It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission has, therefore, got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, also stands rejected.

8.           The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, to the effect that the complainants being investors, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record, that the complainants are the property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the  Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the  complainants are interested in interest upon their investment instead of residential plot and, thus, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The  complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘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.  

9.           The next question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether within which period, the possession of the unit, in question, is to be delivered to the complainants. On this point, Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the clause regarding possession is duly detailed in Clause 24 and the same further provides for exclusion of Sundays, Bank Holidays etc. and said part is also to be read for the purpose of arriving at the final date of possession. It is evident from record that allotment letter (Annexure C-8) was issued on 28.05.2012. Clause 24(a) relating to possession reads as under:-

“24(a) The Company shall put its best efforts to complete the development of the Plot/Project within 18 (Eighteen) months or within an extended period of six months, from the date of signing of this Allotment Letter by the Allottee(s), subject to force majeure conditions [as mentioned in Clause (b) hereunder] and subject to various Plot Allottee(s) making timely payment or subject to any other reasons beyond the control of the Company. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Company  in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of any of the aforesaid reasons and the Company shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the said Plot to the Allottee(s). The aforesaid period of development shall be computed by excluding Sundays, Bank Holidays, enforced Govt. holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any Judicial/concerned State Legislative Body.”

            Thus, computing 18 months period from the date of signing of the allotment letter i.e. 28.05.2012 (Annexure C-8), the possession was to be delivered by 27.11.2013. As per aforesaid clause, another extended period of six months subject to force majeure, was available to the Opposite Parties to hand over possession. The Opposite Parties have stated that period was to be computed by excluding Sundays, Bank Holidays, enforced Govt. holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any Judicial/concerned State Legislative Body and a period of around five months was on this account. Apparently, for seeking six months extension beyond 18 months, the Opposite Parties owe an explanation, if the delay was on account of force majure conditions but nothing by way of cogent evidence to this effect has been placed on record. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession within 18   months from the date of signing of the allotment letter or within an extended period of 6 months, subject to exclusion of Sundays, government holidays etc., and the said issue was already decided vide order dated 10.06.2016 passed by this Commission in Complaint Case No.311 of 2015 titled as Shellender Singh Vs. M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., wherein, it was decided that when no explanation for extension of six months period has been furnished, the Opposite Parties at the most could be allowed one out of the two benefits i.e. either six months extension beyond 24 months or five months period on account of Sundays/Holidays etc. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Commission, we are of the view that the possession is to be delivered within 18 months + 6 months i.e. maximum period of 24 months from the date of signing the allotment letter and the said period of 24 months has been calculated from 28.05.2012, as such, the said period expired on 27.05.2014. So, it is clearly proved that possession of the said plot was to be delivered by the Opposite Parties latest by 27.05.2014.

10.          The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was delay in offering possession of the plot, in question, and if so, to what extent. The complainants, in their complaint, have stated that the Opposite Parties sent pre-drafted allotment letter to the complainants, who upon receipt, visited the Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties and signed the same in duplicate on 15.01.2012 (Annexure C-7). It was further stated that the complainants only received the complete and legal copy of the allotment letter finally on 28.05.2012, which is approximately delayed by 2 ½ years from booking ; 6 months from provisional allotment and 5 months from part execution of the allotment letter. A bare perusal of the copy of the allotment letter (Annexure C-7) annexed by the complainants clearly reveals that no date was mentioned on the same, to which, it proves that the same was signed by the complainants on 15.01.2012 and, as such, there was delay of about 5 months in signing both the allotment letters i.e. Annexures C-7 and C-8. The complainants also placed on record copy of allotment letter  (Annexure C-8). From this document, it is clearly proved that the same was signed on 28.05.2012.  As per Clause 24(a) of the allotment letter dated 28.05.2012, the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction/development of the plot/project within 18 months or within an extended period of six months from the date of signing of the allotment letter, subject to force majeure conditions. Since allotment letter is dated 28.05.2012, by computing 18 months plus 6 months period, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the plot, in question, by 27.05.2014. It has been submitted by the Opposite Parties that possession was offered vide letter dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure C-10) but the complainants neither deposited the balance payment nor came forward to take possession. It is noted from letter dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure C-10) that the complainants were asked to complete the payment formalities due as per Annexure–A within 15 days from the date of dispatch. It was also specified in the aforesaid letter that the moment full and final payment was received, physical possession would be handed over. The demand raised vide the aforesaid letter was to the following effect:-

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (In Rs.)
A) (I) Net Basic Sale Price	28,32,971.34
(II) ADDITIONAL
Club Cost	50,000.00
Interest Free Maintenance Security	30,000.00
(III) Other Cost
Power Backup Equipment Cost-1	80,000.00
Infrastructure Cost/Cess (Levy by Govt.)	62,086.34
Electrical Sub-Station Cost	30,018.44
Dual Source Energy Meter & Prepaid Metering System Cost (299.01 – 418.60 Sqyd.)	26,550.00
Utility Cost	12,000.00
Total (I+II+III)	31,23,626.12
B) Interest on account of delayed remittance	15.00
Grand Total (A+B)	31,23,641.12
C) Received Amount	27,07,445.00
Balance Due (A+B-C)	416196.12
Service Tax	0.00
GRAND TOTAL	416196.12
CHEQUE AMOUNT RCVD (UNDER REALIZATION)	0.00

11.             The complainants submitted that claim of Opposite Parties, as is evident from the contents of Paras 1 to 3 of letter dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure C-10) (extracted hereunder), was highly incorrect:-

“First, we want to congratulate you for becoming owner of a beautiful piece of land amidst Punjab’s greenest tree-line and one of the most beautiful skylines.

While you were raising your dreams in your imagination, we simply made sure to realize them as quickly and beautifully as promised. Therefore, we are as eagerly waiting to give you the prized possession of your plot as you are. A simple sign of it is the rapid construction of the round-about, completion of the grand and long awaited Club Aura in its last phase, birds already making way to the Dew & Rainbow Parks, finishing touch being given to the Oasis-the 7 acre park, and the commercial complexes coming soon.

 So, while we thank you for making us a part of your dreams, it gives us immense pleasure in informing you that just one formality is all that keeps you away from the possession. All you need to do is to complete the payment formalities due as per the Annexure – A of this letter within 15 days from the date of dispatch. In addition, the moment we receive the full and final payment in compliance with the other formalities, we will be more than happy to hand you over the physical possession of your dream land. This means, the execution and registration of Sale/Conveyance deed of the said plot will be made in your favour.”

12.             The contents aforesaid clearly reveal that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that possession to the complainants was offered vide the aforesaid letter. The complainants had already made payment in the sum of Rs.27,07,445/-  well   in    time    without     any     default vide receipts dated 13.12.2010 (Rs.13,50,000/-) and 10.01.2012 (Rs.13,57,445/-). It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that there was any delay in making aforesaid payment by the complainants. It is clearly evident from the record that possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainants by the Opposite Parties, as per period stipulated in clause 24(a) of the allotment letter and even after the extended period of six months, as per terms of the allotment letter. No justification for extension of 6 months period is in evidence. As per the complainants, the development of the plot, in question, is not still complete and complete legal possession has not been offered. It has been stated that provision of water, electricity and sewerage did not exist and even site of plot, in question, is 5 feet below road level.  On the face of aforesaid facts and in the absence of placing on record any cogent evidence that the amenities at the site were complete, averment of the complainants that development and amenities were not complete has to be accepted. Had the amenities been completed at the site, then certainly the Opposite Parties, being in possession of the best evidence, having engaged a number of engineers/architects, would have placed, on record, their reports, to prove that factum. Thus, there has been delay in offering possession, which was due on 27.05.2014. The aforesaid delay is clearly attributable to the Opposite Parties.

13.          The question, which now falls for consideration, is, whether the complainants are entitled to interest for delayed possession. The hard earned money of the complainants remained with the Opposite Parties and besides delay in executing allotment letter, possession was delayed beyond the period stipulated in the allotment letter. It is evident from record that the complainants made payments in time. The complainants are, therefore, entitled to interest for the period from 27.05.2014 on the amount of Rs.27,07,445/- deposited with the Opposite Parties till handing over of actual, complete and legal physical possession of the plot, in question, @12% per annum [in the event of delayed payment due or payable by the allottee, in terms of Clause 14 of the allotment letter, the Opposite Parties charge penal interest @18% per annum on the amount outstanding up-to one month delay from the due date of outstanding and @24% per annum thereafter on all outstanding dues from their respective due dates.].

14.             The next question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the demand raised by the Opposite Parties to the tune of Rs.4,16,196.12 vide statement of account dated 19.02.2016 is justified or not. On going through the above statement of account (at page No.135 of the file) of the Opposite Parties, it is clear that out of the Net Basic Sale Price of Rs.28,32,971.34, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs.27,07,445/- vide payment receipts dated 13.12.2010 and 10.01.2012. There is a balance amount of Rs.1,25,526.34  to be paid by the complainants with regard to net basic sale price. Besides the above amount, the complainants are liable to pay Interest Free Maintenance Security in the sum of Rs.30,000/- + Power Backup Equipment Cost-1 of Rs.80,000/- + Infrastructure Cost/Cess (Levy by Govt.) of Rs.62086.34 + Electrical Sub-Station Cost of Rs.30,018.44 + Due Source Energy Meter & Prepaid Metering System Cost (299.01 – 418.60 Sqyd.) of Rs.26,550/- + Utility Cost of Rs.12,000/-, totaling to an amount of Rs.3,66,181.12. However, out of the demanded amount of Rs.50,000/- with regard to club charges, as required to be paid by the complainants, as and when the club is constructed and facilities are provided therein. To summarise, the complainants are liable to pay the total sum of Rs.3,66,181.12 (to say Rs.3,66,181/-) at the time of taking over of the possession.

15.           The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the complainants are entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment on account of delay in handing over possession of the plot, in question. Clearly, the complainants made the huge amount of the plot, in question i.e. Rs.27,07,445/-, during the period 13.12.2010 to 10.01.2012 much prior to execution of allotment letter dated 28.05.2012. The allotment letter was duly signed by the complainants on 28.05.2012. Despite deposit of huge sum of Rs.27,07,445/-, the complainants were not offered possession of the plot, in question, by the Opposite Parties within the stipulated period of 18 months and even by availing 6 months extended period. The Opposite Parties cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the delay was on account of force majure conditions. The Opposite Parties were clearly deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practices. The complainants, thus, underwent immense mental agony and physical harassment for which, they are entitled to compensation. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, if granted, shall meet the ends of justice.

16.          Since we are granting possession, complete in all respects, handsome compensation, interest and litigation expenses to the complainants, so, the complainants are not entitled to any other relief, as claimed by them.

17.            No other point, was urged, by the complainant(s) and Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

18.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with costs against the Opposite Parties, in the following manner:-

1. The Opposite Parties shall hand over the legal physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, after obtaining completion certificate, within a period of three months, to the complainants, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
2. The complainants shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,66,181/-, with the Opposite Parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
3. The Opposite Parties shall execute the sale/conveyance deed and get it registered in the name of the complainants after handing over the actual physical possession of plot, in question, as per direction in Clause (i), above, within a period of three months thereafter. The stamp duty, registration charges and all other incidental and legal expenses for execution and registration of sale deed shall be borne by the complainants.
4. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay interest @12% per annum on Rs.27,07,445/- to the complainants from 27.05.2014 till 30.09.2016, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, it shall carry penal interest @15% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.
5. Interest @12% per annum, as directed in Clause (iv) above, accruing w.e.f. 01.10.2016 onwards till handing over of actual physical possession of the plot, in question, shall be payable by the Opposite Parties at the time of handing over of possession, to the complainants, failing which the same shall carry penal interest @15% per annum for the entire defaulted period.
6. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.
7. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as cost of litigation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.

19.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced.

September   19, 2016.                                    Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb