Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/132/2019

Seema - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Onkar Rai & Neeraj Sharma Adv.

09 Dec 2020

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	132 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	28.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	09.12.2020

 

Seema wife of Onkar Rai, House No.45, Type-III, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

 

•  

Versus

 

1. The M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developer Pvt. Ltd., SCO 139-140, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director-cum-Authorized Signatory now  Registered Office at Omaxe Tower, Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Mohali.
2. The M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developer Pvt. Ltd., 10 Local Shopping Complex, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019 through its Chairman-cum-MD.
3. The M/s Property Masters, Omaxe Chandigarh Phase-1, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-    

                     
Sh.Onkar Rai, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Gazi Mohd. Umair, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2 (voice call).

Opposite party no.3 exparte vide order dated 27.09.2019.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   It is the case of the complainant that on making payment of booking amount to the tune of Rs.5 lacs on 29.01.2015, she had booked a plot measuring 150 square yards @Rs.28,800/- in the project of the opposite parties, launched by them under the name and style ‘Omaxe New Chandigarh Plots’, Phase V, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, total sale consideration whereof was fixed at Rs.46,91,100/-. At the time of booking, it was made clear by the complainant that she is interested in park facing and corner preferential located  plot only, for which she was ready to make preferential location charges (PLC). Thereafter, the opposite parties again raised demand of Rs.7,78,877/- which was paid by her vide receipt dated 01.04.2015, Annexure C-4 and Rs.4,14,563/-, Annexure C-5 vide receipt dated 05.10.2016. It has been stated that despite the fact that it was assured by the opposite parties that possession of the plot in question will be delivered within a period of 2 years from the date of booking, yet they conducted draw of lots after three years and vide letter dated  03.11.2018, Annexure C-6, she was allotted plot no.1105, measuring 149.87 square yards in the said project. However, on specific query, it was made clear to the complainant that since she had not applied for preference of east facing plot, as such, the company will not claim any extra amount for the same. It has been pleaded that she was surprised when she received letter dated 18.11.2018, Annexure C-7, wherein apart from demand of next instalment of Rs.4,22,112.65 ps. an amount of Rs.1,07,906.40 ps. was also demanded on account of PLC-East/North/North facing (Partial) of the plot. It was also found that now the total sale consideration of the plot stood revised to Rs.49,86,265/- against earlier amount of Rs.46,91,100/-. Number of visits made to the office of the opposite parties and also letters written to them, with a request to withdraw the said illegal and arbitrary demand and also to apprise her about the exact date of delivery of possession of the plot in question did not yield any result.

2.           By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties, amount to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking following reliefs:-
   1. “To withdraw the new payment schedule dated 18.11.2018 (Annexure C-7) whereby the opposite party No. 1 and 2 without informing the complainant replaced the payment schedule dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure C-3) and allow the complainant to make the payment in accordance with payment schedule/demand letter dated 03.03.2015 to opposite party No. 1 and 2 against the plot No. 1105, East facing having area of 149.87 sq. yards in project New Chandigarh plots V situated at Omaxe New Chandigarh SAS Nagar, Mullanpur, Punjab.
   2. To withdraw the demand of PLC of Rs. 215812.80 against the plot No. 1105, East facing having area of 149.87 sq. yards in project New Chandigarh plots V situated at Omaxe New Chandigarh SAS Nagar, Mullanpur, Punjab as the aforesaid plot was allotted in draw conducted by the opposite parties on 03.11.2018 and on the other hand, the complainant has requested and demanded park facing and corner plot at the time of booking and signing expression of interest (Annexure C-2) which was not allotted, therefore, demand of PLC of Rs. 215812.80 is illegal and arbitrary.
   3. To inform the complainant in writing when opposite party No. 1 and 2 would hand-over the actual physical possession of the No. 1105, East facing having area of 149.87 sq. yards in project New Chandigarh plots V situated at Omaxe New Chandigarh SAS Nagar.
   4. To inform the complainant in writing with regard to dimensions i.e. length and breadth of plot No. 1105, East facing having area of 149.87 sq. yards in project New Chandigarh plots V situated at Omaxe New Chandigarh SAS Nagar.
   5. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and humiliation to complainant.
   6. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in the interest of justice.
   7. OR grant any other appropriate relief which the Hon'ble forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint.”
3.           Her claim has been contested by opposite parties no.1 and 2, on numerous grounds, inter alia, that the complainant being speculator did not fall under the definition of consumer; that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction; that mere on the basis of expression of interest and that too for another project of opposite parties no.1 and 2, the complainant cannot seek any relief with regard to delay in delivery of possession of the plot in question; that because no agreement has been executed between the parties giving definite period of delivery of possession and also the fact that allotment of the plot in question was made in her favour, for the first time vide letter dated 03.11.2018, as such, if 24 months are taken from the said date for delivery of possession of the said plot to the complainant then this complaint having been filed on  28.05.2019 is premature;  that the complainant defaulted in making payments under time linked payment plan; that the court fees paid by the complainant is defective i.e. Rs.500/-, as such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score;
4.           On merits, purchase of the plot in question by the complainant; payments made by her as mentioned in the complaint; non execution of agreement till the date of filing of this complaint or thereafter, has not been disputed by opposite parties no.1 and 2. It has been stated that since the plot was to be allotted in favour of the complainant, after conducting draw of lots, as such, it was not possible to provide her park facing and corner plot at the time of booking thereof; that because the plot allotted in favour of the complainant was facing east, she is liable to pay PLC for the same; and that all the approvals had been obtained before launching the said project. By placing reliance on format of agreement Annexure R-1, it has been pleaded that since the date/period of delivery of possession is always taken from the date of execution of the agreement which has not been executed in the present case, as instead of executing the same, the complainant had filed this consumer complaint, as such, on this count too, this complaint being premature is liable to be dismissed. It has been averred that no illegal charges have been levied by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and increase in the sale consideration, if any, arose on account of the reason that the same contains basic sale price, PLC and other miscellaneous charges, which the complainant is liable to pay. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5.           None put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.09.2019.
6.           This Commission has afforded adequate opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, by way of filing affidavit. In pursuance thereof, the complainant and opposite parties no.1 and 2 have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and also produced numerous documents including rejoinder and written arguments by the complainant, which have been gone through by this Commission, very carefully.
7.           In the rejoinder filed and also written arguments filed by the complainant, she has sought interest on the deposited amount, as there is delay in delivering possession of the plot in question and also to issue directions to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to treat her equally with the similar located allottees in the project i.e. to invite her in the functions organized by them.
8.           From the pleadings of parties concerned and other material available on the record, following points have emerged for consideration in this case: -
   1. Whether this Commission has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
   2. Whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer?
   3. Whether the complaint filed is premature?
   4. Whether there was any deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
   5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the period of delay, if any, in delivery of possession of the plot in question?

 

9.           First coming to the objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, it may be stated here that this complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under which, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction, the Consumer Foras were required to take into consideration the value of the goods and compensation claimed if any. In the present case, if the total value of the plot purchased by the complainant and compensation claimed are clubbed together, the same exceeds Rs.20 lacs and fell below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
10.           Now coming to the objection raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that it is settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the Court/Tribunal/Fora within the territorial limits of which that occurs. In the instant case, record reveals that demand letter dated 03.03.2015, Annexure C-3, payment receipt dated 01.04.2015 in the sum of Rs.7,78,877/-, Annexure C-4; 05.10.2016, Annexure C-5, in the sum of Rs.4,14,563/- have been issued from Regional Office of the Company at SCO 139-140, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, meaning thereby that the Company was actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on business from its Regional Office at Chandigarh and personally work for gain thereat. Thus, it is held that this Commission at Chandigarh has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Objection taken stands rejected.
11.           As far as objection taken to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such the onus shifts to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to establish that the complainant has purchased the plot in question to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of plots’ as was held by the Hon’ble National  Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but since they failed to discharge their onus, hence we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Act. In this view of the matter, objection taken in this regard stands rejected. 
12.           There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant booked the plot in question, in the project aforesaid of opposite parties no.1 and 2, on making payment of Rs.5 lacs on 29.01.2015, total sale consideration whereof was fixed at Rs.46,91,100/-.  It is also coming out from the record that, thereafter, on demands having been raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,78,877/-, vide receipt dated 01.04.2015 and Rs. 4,14,563/- vide receipt dated 05.10.2016. In this manner, total amount of Rs.16,93,440/- stood received by opposite parties no.1 and 2 from the complainant, yet, thereafter for a long period of time i.e. more than 3 ½ years, neither allotment of plot was made in her favour nor agreement was executed between the parties. It was for the first time that vide letter dated 03.11.2018, Annexure C-6 (after more than 3 ½ years of booking), plot no.1105 with PLC of East measuring 149.87 square yards was allotted in favour of the complainant. Even by the date when this complaint has been filed and arguments were heard therein, neither agreement was presented for signatures to the complainant nor possession of the plot in question has been offered to her. Plot in question was booked by the complainant in January 2015 and now it is December 2020, still the complainant is empty handed.
13.           At the time of arguments, when confronted with the situation, Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to apprise this Commission as to why, when the Company had already received substantial amount equal to more than 25% of the total sale consideration, agreement was not executed; he did not give any answer but, on the other hand, repeatedly contended that since agreement has not been executed and also there is no other document which says about delivery of possession of the plot in question, as such, even if the period of two years are counted from 03.11.2018, when allotment was made in favour of the complainant, this complaint having been filed on 28.05.2019 is premature. We do not agree with the contention raised for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that, in the first instance,  the act of raising demands and receiving amount more than 25% of the sale consideration and that too in the absence of any allotment of plot and without executing the agreement, was not only unfair but illegal, which contravenes Section 6 (1) of the PAPR Act,  which lays a duty on the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to execute the agreement for sale as per law, after obtaining the maximum sale consideration of 25%. It is apposite here to reproduce the said provision: -

 “6. Contents of agreement of sale:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed form together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1906) ;

Provided that, if only a refundable application fee is collected from the applicant before draw of lots for allotment, such agreement will be required only after such draw of lots.

(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx……………...

(3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx……………….”

14.           Opposite parties no.1 and 2 were duty bound under law to execute the agreement and to get the same registered under the Registration Act 1908, after obtaining 25% of the sale consideration, but in this case, the said provision has been violated. Thus, if there was gross violation of the provisions of Section 6 aforesaid, on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in not getting the agreement executed within the required period i.e. on receipt of amount equal to 25% of amount aforesaid, now at this stage, they cannot seek any benefit out of it.
15.           Secondly, the contention raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the effect that since the complainant has filled up expression of interest on 29.01.2015 for purchase of the plot in question and that the allotment letter in respect of the plot in question was issued only on 03.11.2018, as such, the period of two years for delivery of possession of the plot in question was to be taken from the said date and on doing so, this complaint having been filed on 28.05.2019 is premature, too does not merit acceptance, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.  It is not disputed that expression of interest in respect of purchase of a plot by the complainant in the project of opposite parties no.1 and 2 was filled on 29.01.2015, Annexure C-2, on making payment of Rs.5 lacs. However, thereafter, to confirm the booking of a plot out of the said expression of interest, demand letter dated 03.03.2015, Annexure C-3 was raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2, wherein it was in a very candid manner mentioned that “…we would like to inform you that as per the payment plan opted by you i.e. Time Linked Payment Plan, the following payment is pending for payment from your side to continue/confirm the booking under the said payment plan”. Thus, in order to confirm the booking of a plot, the complainant was asked to make payment of Rs.7,78,877.05 ps., by 31.03.2015, over and above the amount of Rs.5 lacs already received by opposite parties no.1 and 2. It is coming out from the record that that the said amount of Rs.7,78,877/- was paid by the complainant vide cheque dated 31.03.2015 against which receipt dated 01.04.2015, Annexure C-4 was issued in her favour. Thus, out of the said expression of interest, plot was confirmed to be booked on 31.03.2015 when the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,78,877/- was paid by the complainant to the company. Record reveals that thereafter also, an  amount of Rs. 4,14,563/- was paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 05.10.2016, totalling Rs.16,93,440/-. Thus, if despite receiving aforesaid amount from the complainant after confirmation of booking of the plot in question, opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to issue allotment letter and the same had been issued after an inordinate delay of more than 3 ½ years of booking vide letter dated 03.11.2018, without giving any justification for the said delay, then they have lost their right to get any immunity in this regard. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 in the present case want to have the cake and eat it too. It clearly shows their high-handedness towards the poor consumer like the complainant. It is therefore held that the act and conduct of opposite parties no.1 and 2 amount to grave deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. In our considered opinion, opposite parties no.1 and 2 were legally bound to issue allotment letter in respect of the plot in question immediately on receipt of amount of Rs.7,78,877/- from the complainant vide cheque dated 31.03.2015 and thereafter should have executed agreement, containing detailed terms and conditions including the date/period of delivery of possession of the plot in question to the complainant, which they have miserably failed to do so. The fact remains that there is no agreement in respect of the plot in question, despite the fact that substantial amount referred to above, has been received by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and also that the plot in question had been booked as far as back in 2015.
16.           The Consumer Protection Act has been made to safeguard consumer rights. This Act is regarded as the 'Magna carta' (everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial) in the field of consumer protection for checking unfair trade practices, ‘defects in goods’ and ‘deficiencies in services’ and it works and protects consumers even in situations where they do not know their rights.

                   It is settled law that in the cases, where no agreement has been executed or where there is no period mentioned therein, a reasonable period has to be taken into consideration for delivering possession of the plot/unit to the allottee because the allottee cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period in the matter.  What should be the reasonable period, in the cases where no time period is given in the agreement or otherwise, fell for determination before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as  M/s. Fortune Infrastructure Appellant(s) (Now Known as M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) & anr. Versus Trevor Dlima & Ors. Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No(S). 3533-3534 of 2017, decided on 12.03.2018, wherein it was held that when there is no delivery period stipulated, a time period of 3 years would be reasonable for completion of the contract. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract ………….”

 

Similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 2 Ors. Vs. Jotinder Singh, First Appeal No. 870 of 2015 decided on 10 Nov 2016.  Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-

“The first question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether there was any delay on the part of the appellants in offering possession of the flat to the complainant and his son.  As noted earlier, the case of the complainant is that the appellant No.1 had assured to deliver possession within 18/24 months.  However, there is no documentary evidence of such an assurance having been given to the complainant and his son.  Ordinarily, in such transaction a particular time for delivery of possession is always given by the builder to the flat buyer and this is not the case of the appellants that they had given a period longer than 24 months to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant and his son.  However, even if it is assumed that no such assurance was actually given, it can hardly be disputed that the appellants were under an obligation to deliver possession of the flat within a reasonable time.  Considering all the facts and circumstances, a maximum period of three years from the date of booking, in my opinion, would be reasonable for completing the construction, finishing of the flat in all respects, obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate and offering possession of the flat to the complainant and his son.  Since according to the appellants, the booking was made on 23.11.2007; the possession ought to have been delivered by 22.11.2010.  That having not been done, the appellant No. 1 is required to pay adequate compensation to the complainant and his son for the delay in offering possession after completing the construction and finishing of the flat in all respects…”.  

 

17.           Since in the present case also, there is no period mentioned in any of the documents and also no agreement has been executed between the parties till the date when arguments were heard therein, in respect of the plot in question, as such a reasonable period of three years from the date of booking if taken into consideration, for completing the construction/development of the project and handing over possession of the plot in question to the complainant, will meet the ends of justice. In the present case, since booking of the plot was confirmed on 31.03.2015, as held in para no.15 above, as such, opposite parties no.1 and 2 were liable to deliver possession thereof to the complainant latest by 30.03.2018 i.e. three years from 31.03.2015. Admittedly, in the present case, possession of the plot in question was not delivered to the complainant by the said date (30.03.2018) or even thereafter. Under above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that now appropriate directions with regard to execution of agreement in respect of the plot in question and also payment of compensation by way of interest on the deposited amount till possession of the plot is delivered to the complainant needs to given by this Commission, in order to meet the ends of justice. At the same time, it is held that in view of findings given above, contention raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 that this complaint filed is premature being devoid of merit stands rejected.
18.           Now we will decide the question, as to whether, miscellaneous charges like EDC, water charges, taxes etc, were included in the basic sale price of the unit in question or the complainant was required to pay the same, over and above, the basic sale price or not. It may be stated here that to come to any conclusion on this issue, we need to refer to the relevant contents of expression of interest dated 29.01.2015, Annexure C-2, as under:-

“6. Addl. Cost, PLC, Govt. Levies etc. : PAYABLE EXTRA, ON DEMAND BY THE COMPANY..”

 

Perusal of afore-extracted contents makes it very clear that the complainant had agreed to pay additional cost, PLC (if applicable), govt. levies etc. over and over the basic sale price of the plot in question. There is nothing on record that the said acceptance on the part of the complainant was based on any coercion or otherwise. Thus, in our considered opinion, demand raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 vide letter dated 05.02.2019, Annexure C-12, towards EDC, electrical sub-station charges, infrastructure cost/cess, utility cost, dual electricity supply energy meter and IFMA was legal.

                   As far as payment of PLC is concerned, it may be stated here that perusal of expression of interest dated 29.01.2015 reveals that the complainant had shown her desire for a plot facing park with corner only. Though, additional request to this effect was also made by the complainant vide document Annexure R-2 placed on record by opposite parties no.1 and 2 only, yet, it is coming out from the record that the plot allotted in favour of the complainant was not as per PLC opted by the complainant i.e. facing park with corner only but, on the other hand, it was facing east only which was against her choice. There is not even a single document on record wherefrom it could reveal that opposite parties no.1 and 2 were entitled to charge extra amount toward PLC for a plot facing east direction. Thus, in our considered opinion the said demand raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 towards PLC which too was against the choice opted by the complainant is illegal and is accordingly set aside.     

19.           It is also coming out from the record that despite the fact that the complainant wrote letter dated 20.11.2018, Annexure C-8 and also 08.01.2019, Annexure C-10, whereby she made requests to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to apprise her with regard to charging of PLC aforesaid; change in payment schedule; dimension of plot in question; and also the date of actual physical possession of the plot in question, but they miserably failed to reply the same and, on the other hand, while ignoring the aforesaid letters, were interested in raising demands. This act of opposite parties no.1 and 2, in itself amounts to deficiency in providing service and negligence on their part and under those circumstances, the complainant was right in not making further payments, especially, when no agreement was sent to her for signatures and no exact date of delivery of possession was intimated to her, despite the fact that the plot was booked as far as back in 2015. Thus, in no way, the complainant can be termed as defaulter and also opposite parties no.1 and 2 cannot charge any delayed interest from her.
20.           Now coming to the objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 with regard to court fees, we have gone through the requisite documents and found that correct fees to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, has been paid by her.  Perusal of record reveals that since the complainant had corrected the typographical error, by hand, in the complaint and instead of Rs.500/- the correct amount of Rs.2000/- as court fees has been mentioned therein, as such, this is not a valid ground to dismiss this complaint.  Objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
21.           As far as plea taken by the complainant to the effect that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are not inviting her to the functions being organized by them since 2015, it may be stated here that the said contention  does not merit acceptance without any documentary evidence in that regard, wherefrom it could reveal that the company is obliged to invite all the existing customers in the functions allegedly conducted by them. However, we feel it proper to issue directions to opposite parties no.1 and 2 that in case similar located allottees are invited in the functions organized by the company, the complainant if  comes under that umbrella, shall also be invited for the same.
22.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs with the following directions:-
    1. Demand raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 towards PLC of the plot in question facing east is quashed. However, it is made clear that the complainant is liable to make payment of the remaining amount towards miscellaneous charges as reflected in demand letter dated 05.02.2019, Annexure C-12, but after execution of the agreement in respect of the plot in question, mentioning therein the exact details/dimension of the plot in question.
    2. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall not levy/charge any delayed payment interest on the amount demanded from the complainant, in the absence of execution of the agreement, as the demand raised was in violation of Section 6 of PAPR Act.
    3. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall execute agreement in respect of the plot in question, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that since this Commission had already come to the conclusion that the possession of the plot in question was to be delivered within a reasonable period of three years from the date (31.03.2015) of confirmation of booking i.e. latest by 30.03.2018, as such, the said date shall remain the committed date for delivery of possession of the plot in question.  
    4. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall pay compensation, by way of simple interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 30.03.2018 to 31.12.2020, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter the said amount shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
    5. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount w.e.f. 01.01.2021, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the plot, complete in all respects, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @12% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made, which shall continue till possession of the plot in question is delivered to the complainant.

                 Thereafter, the complainant shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed directly from the Registering Authority or through opposite parties no.1 and 2, on making payment of stamp duty charges/other charges as applicable under law.  At the same time she shall be liable to make the remaining payment towards price of the said plot, as per demands raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2, after execution of the agreement and shall not be left with any immunity of payment of delayed interest, in case there is delay in making payments on her part, except/save, if the demand is raised in the absence of development activities at the project site.

1. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.50,000/-, in lumpsum, towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and cost of litigation, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

23.           Since, no deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of opposite party no.3, as such, complaint against it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
24.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
25.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

09.12.2020

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Rg.