STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

        Shri Tarun Singla, aged 39 years, son of Sh.Narinder Kumar Singla, resident of House No.780, Sector-12, Panchkula,Haryana and

        Smt.Indu Singla aged 62 years wife of Sh.Narinder Kumar Singla, resident of House No.780, Sector-12, Panchkula, Haryana. 

                                                                                                                                                             ….Complainants

                                                   Versus

1.   M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. having Regd. Corp. office 10 L.S.C., Kalkaji, New Delhi through its  Managing director/Directors,  Chief Executive Officer Mr.Rohtas Goel

2^nd Address

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Ext. Developers Pvt. Ltd. S.C.O.143-144 Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through Managing Direcotor/ Directors/ Chief Executive Officer.

     3^rd Address

     M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension, Site Address: In the revenue Estate of Villages Kansala, Parol, Kartarpur, Rani Majra Takipur Boothgarh, Dhode Majra Rasoolpurand Bhagat Majra In Mullanpur LPA (GMADA) District S.A.S. Nagar (Mullanpur) Punjab, through its Managing Director/  Director/  Chief Executive Officer.

                                                                                               ……Opposite Party

                 Complaint  under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986                   

BEFORE:       MR.DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Amitabh Suri, Advocate for the complainants.

                        Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the Opposite Party

PER  DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                 At the time of arguments on 13.06.2018, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties that facts involved in this complaint and connected complaint bearing No.753 of 2017, by and large, are the same and, therefore, these could be disposed of by passing one consolidated order.  However, to have certain clarifications, complaint bearing No.753 of 2017 has been listed for fresh hearing separately.

2.         In brief, the facts of this complaint are that  the Opposite Party advertised its project namely ‘Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’ situated at Mullanpur and invited applications for booking of residential plots with promise to handover the possession of the said plots within 18 months with maximum grace period of 6 months. The complainants booked a plot of 301.14 sq.yards   vide OCE/446CF2  at total sale price of Rs.28,67,475.38 inclusive of all except Club Membership fee of Rs.50,000/- and refundable maintenance security of Rs.30,000/- by paying booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 13.1.2011. The complainants in para-4  of their complaint has given detail of payments made from time to time during the period 13.1.2011 to 3.9.2013, in the sum of Rs.29,14,200/-. It was further stated that only balance amount of Rs.33274.78  was to be paid at the time of possession. It was further stated that the complainants opted Development  Linked Plan and accordingly all the payments were made before time as demanded by the OP. It was further stated that the complainants had already paid more than 99%  payments to the OP, strictly as per demand/schedule made by the OP without any delay  but the OP falsely added Rs.2,10,883.98 in its latest account statement dated 24.1.2017 and demanded the said  amount from the complainants.  It was further stated that the possession was to be delivered by  OP to the  complainants within 18 months  with  grace period of 6 months which comes out to be 2 years from the date of booking i.e.13.1.2011. It was stated that  there is delay of more than 5 years 6 months approximately as the grace period is given only if the possession would have been delivered within grace period.  It was further stated that on the assurance and pursuance of the OP  for quality and timely execution, the complainants  had agreed to purchase the plot in the project of the OP. As per agreed terms and conditions of the agreement,  possession of the plot with installation and provision  of all  amenities was supposed to be handed over on or before 4.7.2012 but the OP did not hand over the possession till date, leading to inordinate delay.  

3.             Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party,  complainants filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Party, to hand over physical possession of the plot with complete amenities/development;  pay interest @10% p.a. till handing over possession of the plot; pay compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs for continuous harassment, mental agony & irony as complainants spent hard earned money and also to pay Rs.1.00 lac as litigation cost; and to withdraw its additional unjustified amount of Rs.2,10,883.98 in its latest account statement dated 24.1.2017 which is beyond agreed terms and conditions of the allotment.

4.            Upon notice,  Opposite Party entered appearance and filed reply taking   certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complainants, being investors, did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as, they purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose/speculation. It was stated that the complainants were having house No.780, Sector-12, Panchkula and there was no disclosure of source of funds, hence purchase of 2^nd plot by the complainants is deemed to be for commercial purchase. It was further stated  that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that this Commission also does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action, whatsoever, has accrued at Chandigarh as the property is located in Punjab and registered office of the Opposite Party is at New Delhi. It was further stated that  the complaint merits dismissal on the ground of concealment of vital fact by the complainants as they did not disclose that the possession of plot was offered on 2.6.2017 but even after many reminders they failed to take possession of the plot for extraneous reasons. 

5.             Factual matrix of the case was not controverted.   It was stated that net basic sale  price of the plot is Rs.31,63,118.42 as described in the allotment letter/Buyer’s agreement. It was admitted that the complainants paid Rs.29,14,200/-    It was further stated that the complainants were defaulters and never made payments on time and had to be sent various reminders/ letters/notices (Exhibit OP-2 colly). It was denied that the OP had fictitiously or falsely added any demand in the account statement  and all the amounts were demanded as per the terms of the agreement executed between the OP and the complainants.  

6.               It was denied that the due date of possession was 12.07.2012. It was stated that as per Clause 24 (a) of the Allotment Letter/Agreement, possession date was to be computed from the date of signing of agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was to complete the development/construction of the unit, in question, within a maximum period of 18 months from the date of signing of the allotment letter, with extended period of six months . It was further stated that the aforesaid period of development shall be computed by excluding Sundays, bank holidays, enforced government holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any judicial/concerned state legislative body.  It was further stated that possession of plot was offered on 2.6.2017 and the complainants failed to take possession of the plot for extraneous reasons and have concealed the fact of such offer.   It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

7.                 To the reply, rejoinder was filed by the complainants controverting the averments made in the reply and reiterating that of complaint.

8.              Both the parties led evidence in support of their cases.

9.                We have heard the arguments and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.

10.            It is evident on record that the complainants were allotted plot measuring 302.14 sq.yards vide allotment letter dated 10.9.2013 for total sale consideration of Rs.29,47,474.78 paise, as indicated in Annexure- A appended with the allotment letter. In addition, payments on account of the following were payable;  

“Service Tax, Stamp Duty, Registration Charges. Cost towards individual Electricity Meter, Water & Sewerage, External Development Charges, Infrastructure Development charges, Lease rent etc. (any increase thereof, any other cost are not included in price and shall be payable by the Allottee(s)/Buyer(s) on demand by the Company or on offer of possession of the said unit or as and when demanded by concerned Competent Authority(in case of EDC & IDC, Lease Rent, Other govt. Levy, Imposition etc.)”

The complainants opted down payment Plan (Plan-A) as per Annexure –B(Part-II) of allotment letter which reads as under ;

                   PAYMENT PLAN OF THE UNIT

As mentioned by the complainants, they made total payment in the sum of Rs.29,14,206/-. The Opposite Party has specifically averred in its written statement that  the complainants failed to make payments on time and many reminders on 22.7.2011,  28.03.2013, 19.06.2013, 25.07.2013 and 19.8.2013(Ex.OP/2 (Colly) were sent. On account of delay in remitting installments, the complainants were liable to pay interest in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the amount paid by them(complainants) was Rs.27,64,200/-+Rs.1,50,000/-on account  of interest, meaning thereby that the plea of complainants that with payment of Rs.29,14,200/-, balance payable amount was Rs.33,274.78P is not correct.  It is case of the OP that possession was offered on 2.06.2017 raising demand of Rs.4,00,816.32 p which has not been paid till date by the complainants.

11.          Before making any reference to the merits of the case, we would like to decide the objection raised by the opposite party that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not.

12.     According to Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, 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 him. In the instant case, it is evident  that receipts of payments, Letters dated 22.11.2012 and 30.10.2012  (Annexures-5 & 6) were  issued from Chandigarh office of the Opposite Party at SCO 143-144, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the opposite party in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

13.            No doubt, in the written version, an objection was also taken by the opposite party that as per Clause 44 (c) of the Allotment Letter/Agreement, the Courts at Delhi and Punjab, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. 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 complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh.

14..            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.

15.            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 complainants 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 him, to file the complaint. The submission of Counsel for the opposite party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that the mere objection of the opposite party that the complainants are investors, as they purchased the plot, by way of investment, to gain huge profits, by selling the same, as and when there was escalation in prices, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected.

17.            Even otherwise, the mere fact that the plot purchased by the complainants was a residential property, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainants. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainants are property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property. Furthermore, 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. Not only as 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 houses 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.”

 Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Party/builder, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. 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 Opposite Party/builder, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

18.             At the time of arguments, plea was taken by Opposite Party, that in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitrator, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with, by this Commission, in a case titled as ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as 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), 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), and held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement/Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Recently, the larger Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, vide order dated 13.07.2017, has held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018. In view of above, the plea raised by opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.

19.        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. As per Clause 24(a) of the allotment letter, the Opposite Party was 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. In the instant case, the complainants have sought possession of the plot in question. Since Allotment Letter/Agreement was executed between the parties on 10.09.2013, therefore, possession of the said plot was to be delivered to the complainants, on or before 9.9.2015. However, possession of the plot, in question, as per Opposite Party has been   offered to the complainants vide letter dated 2.06.2017 (Ex.OP/3). Alongwith possession letter,  Opposite Party has also annexed Statement of Account (Annexure –A) dated 2.06.2017, wherein against the total amount payable i.e. Rs.31,63,118.82, a sum of Rs.27,64,200.00 is shown to be received and the balance due amount payable by the complainants is shown as Rs.3,98,918.82, plus Rs.1897.50 towards Service Tax.   The demand raised vide the aforesaid letter was to the following effect:-

20.            The averment of complainants in their complaint  that the Opposite Party factiously  and falsely added Rs.2,10,883.98 in their latest account statement dated 24.01.2017 beyond agreed terms and conditions of allotment, in view of position explained above is apparently not correct. 

21.            The contents of letter dated 02.06.2017 clearly reveal that the complainants have already made payment in the sum of Rs.27,64,200.00. However, possession was not delivered to the complainants as per period stipulated in clause 24(a) of the allotment letter/agreement and even after the extended period of six months, as per terms of the allotment letter. Thus, there has been delay in offering possession, which was due on 10.09.2015 (computing 18 months + 6 months from 10.09.2013 when the Opposite Party issued allotment letter). In view of ratio of judgment of this Commission in Complaint Case No.311 of 2015 titled as ‘Shellender Singh Vs. M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.’, the Opposite Party is not entitled to any benefit of time on account of Sundays, holidays etc. Non-delivery of possession of the plot, in question, by the stipulated date, is a material violation of the terms and conditions of the Allotment Letter/Agreement, on the part of the opposite party. The aforesaid delay is clearly attributable to the Opposite Party.

22.                The complainants have not disclosed the fact that the Opposite Party offered possession to them vide letter dated 2.6.2017 whereas as per evidence brought on record by the Opposite Party vide Annexure Exbt.OP/3, possession was offered and the complainants were required to make payment of an amount of Rs.400816.32p. The letter was sent through Speed Post/Registered Post. Thereafter also, Opposite Party sent numerous letters viz. letter dated 28.7.2017, 28.8.2017, 27.9.2017,31.10.2017 and 28.11.2017(Exb.OP/4(colly.) alongwith which also sent statement of accounts.  As per latest statement of accounts, a sum of Rs.451886.72 became due against the complainants.  A perusal of these documents clearly indicates that the same were sent to the complainants either through Courier or through Speed Post/Registered Post  as on some of the documents, copy of postal receipt has been appended. It may be stated here that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,1897, when such communications are sent through registered post and the same are not received back, there is presumption that the same were received by the allottee/addressee. Clause 27 is extracted hereunder;

        “27.Meaning of service by post:-

 Where any(Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post”.

The possession letter is, therefore, presumed to have been received by the complainants.

23.            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 Party and besides inordinate delay in executing allotment letter, possession was delayed even beyond the period stipulated in the allotment letter. It is evident from record that the complainants had made payments in the sum of Rs.13.60 lacs when   allotment letter dated 10.09.2013 was issued. Computing 18 months plus 6 months grace period = 24 months in terms of Clause 24(a) of the allotment, the complainants are entitled to interest for the period from 10.09.2015 till handing over of actual, complete and legal physical possession of the plot, in question, @10% per annum. Since possession has been offered on 2.06.2017, after 15 days for making payment plus one month as grace period i.e. up to 17.07.2017, the complainants shall be entitled to compensation by way of interest @10% p.a. (simple). The complainants have not disclosed the factum of receipt of possession letter dated 02.06.2017 and have also not made the due payment, therefore, delay beyond 17.07.2017 is attributable to the complainants.  If despite making payment by  the complainants as per demand raised in the letter of possession, which has been held to be justified, possession is not delivered, within 30 days, for delay beyond 30 days from the date   payment is made, the complainants shall be further entitled to compensation @10% interest till possession is actually delivered

24.             The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to them, by not delivering physical possession of the unit to them, by the Opposite Party, by 09.09.2015. The complainants purchased the unit, with the hope to have a roof over their head, but   possession of unit, in question, has been offered to the complainants only on 02.06.2017 after delay of 20 months. Though there was delay in executing allotment letter but the complainants consistently defaulted and delayed payments as is evident from numerous communications sent by the Opposite Party (Exb.OP/2(Colly). The payment of demand raised vide offer of possession letter dated 2.6.2017 has still not been made by the complainants. Delay in making payments has a bearing on timely completion of the project.  The compensation in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs claimed by the complainants is certainly  on the higher side.  Under above circumstances,  compensation to the tune of Rs.1.25 lacs,  if granted, would meet the ends of justice and will definitely put a   naught on the Opposite Party, for doing so, in future.   

25.         Another objection taken by the Opposite Party with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission also deserves rejection. It may be stated here that as envisaged in Section 17(1)(a)  of the Act, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any complaint where value of the goods/services and compensation, if any claimed exceeds Rs.20.00 lacs but does not exceed Rs.one crore.  It was so elucidated elaborately by a larger bench of Hon’ble NCDRC in a case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016.  In the instant case the complainants have sought interest @ 10% p.a. besides compensation in the sum of Rs.5.00 lacs. The total amount claimed on all counts is well below the upper pecuniary limit of this Commission i.e. Rs.one crore.  

26.            No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.

27.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite Party is directed as under:-

1. To hand over the physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, within a period of one month, to the complainants, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of payment from the complainants as per demand raised in possession letter dated 02.06.2017read with letter dated 28.11.2017.
2. The Opposite Party 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 two 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.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @10% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainants, with effect from 10.09.2015 up-to (45 days from the date of offer of possession) i.e. up-to 17.07.2017, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

        For failure of Opposite Party to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment by the complainants, for such delay, if any,  beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @10% p.a. on the deposited amount for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10th of the following month.

4.  On the amount of compensation arrived at by way of  interest @ 10% for the delayed period in the above manner, in the event of non-payment, within 45 days from the date when possession is delivered, interest @9% p.a. on the amount of compensation so arrived at, after expiry of 45 days shall start getting interest @9% till payment is made.
5. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one Lac twenty five thousands  only), to the complainants as consolidated compensation for delay in execution of agreement, mental agony and physical harassment, adopting unfair trade practice & deficiency in rendering service etc., and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @10% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.