Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/58/2019

Sonika Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

H.S. Awasthi Adv.

07 Oct 2020

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	58 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	12.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	07.10.2020

 

1. Sonika Bhardwaj wife of Sh.Harinder Kumar son of Sh.D. Sharma, aged 51 years, resident of House No.1001-H, Sector 21, Panchkula.
2. Harinder Kumar son of Sh. D.Sharma, aged 43 years, resident of House No.1001-H, Sector 21, Panchkula.

 

•  

Versus

 

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd., SCO No.139-140, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through the Director/District Manager.

Second Address:- M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd., New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, District Mohali.

…..Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:           JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-        

                  None for the complainants.

Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The above captioned complaint has been instituted by the complainants seeking directions to the opposite party to pay compensation for the period of delay in handing over possession of the unit purchased by them in its project named “Silver Birch”, New Chandigarh Omaxe, Mullanpur, Punjab. It is the case of the complainants that on 04.08.2010, they paid an amount of Rs.3 lacs to the opposite party, towards booking of unit no.579-E, Second Floor, in the project aforesaid, yet, thereafter, when allotment letter/agreement (in short the agreement) was received for signatures, it was found that terms and conditions contained therein were contrary to the promise made at the time of booking; basic sale price mentioned therein was not correct; and there were other flaws in the said agreement, as a result whereof, they challenged the same. Thereafter, revised agreement dated 14.03.2012 was sent by the opposite party with correct basic sale price, yet, other terms and conditions were not modified. Later on, the opposite party vide letter dated 18.03.2012 (Annexure C-2) informed the complainants that the price of the unit mentioned in the agreement is inclusive of external development charges (EDC) and internal development charges (IDC). It has been stated that thereafter when it was found that the opposite party did not restrain itself from raising illegal demands towards the unit aforesaid and also did not redress various grievances raised by the complainants, consumer complaint bearing no.27 of 2013 had been filed before this Commission on 22.04.2013,  which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2013, being premature. Thereafter, compromise related to the past events, was arrived at between the parties vide compromise deed dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure C-1), whereby the complainants were relocated to unit no.249-C, Second Floor from unit no.579-E, in the same project. Thereafter, agreement in respect of the relocated unit no.249-C was executed between the parties on 29.09.2015 (Annexure R-2).

2.           It has been stated that though, the opposite party vide Clause 31 (a) of the agreement dated 29.09.2015 committed to deliver possession of relocated unit no.249-C on or before 01.02.2014 i.e. within a maximum period of 30 months (24 months plus 6 months extended period) from the date of start of construction, yet, they failed to do so and possession was ultimately delivered to the complainants on 24.02.2016 i.e. after a delay of more than 24 months of the committed period. It has been averred that despite the fact that there was delay in handing over possession of the relocated unit no.249-C, the opposite party failed to pay compensation for the delayed period. Furthermore, the opposite party raised illegal demand towards EDC and IDC over and above the basic sale price, whereas, on the other hand, vide compromise deed dated 11.11.2013 and letter dated 18.03.2012, referred to above, it was in a very candid manner  admitted by it that the basic sale price mentioned in the agreement is inclusive of EDC and IDC. However, the complainants being in disadvantageous position had to pay the said amount of EDC and IDC over and above the basic sale price, at the time of taking over possession of relocated unit and registration of the conveyance deed. 
3.           By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party, amount to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, the complainants have filed the present case seeking directions to the opposite party to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,04,400/- for delay in delivering possession of the relocated unit no.249-C; refund the amount of Rs.21,000/- received by it, in excess, towards EDC and IDC; compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment; and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4.           Their claim has been contested by the opposite party, on numerous grounds, inter alia, that in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this consumer complaint; that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction; that the complaint filed is beyond limitation; that since possession of the relocated unit no.249-C has been delivered to the complainants on 24.02.2016 and conveyance deed has also been got executed on 11.03.2016, now there exists no relationship between the parties and as such the complainants are barred to file this consumer complaint; that the complainants are habitual litigants, as earlier also they had filed complaints before this Commission; District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh and also Civil Court, Chandigarh, in respect of the unit in question. 
5.           On merits, purchase of the unit in question by the complainants; execution of initial agreement; that when the complainants challenged the initial agreement, a revised agreement was executed between the parties on 14.03.2012; relocation to unit no.249-C and execution of agreement dated 29.09.2015 in respect of the same; that there was delay in offering possession of the relocated unit has not been seriously disputed by the opposite party. It has been stated that since no protest was raised by the complainants at the time of delivery of possession of relocated unit no.249-C and execution of conveyance deed thereof, as such, now they cannot file this complaint; and that the issue with regard to payment of delayed compensation already stood settled between the parties. It has been stated that earlier complaint filed before this Commission was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2013, being premature. However, thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the parties and all the issues were settled and ultimately the complainants were relocated to unit no.249-C, for which, fresh agreement was executed between the parties on 29.09.2015 and possession thereof, was delivered within a period of 6 months therefrom. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.
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, they have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and also produced numerous documents including rejoinder and written submissions by the complainants.
7.           Since none appeared on behalf of the complainants, at the time of arguments, as such, we have heard the counsel for the opposite party and have gone through record of the case, including the written submissions filed by the complainants, very carefully.
8.           From the pleadings of Counsel for the opposite party and other material available on the record, following points have emerged for consideration in this case: -
   1. Whether the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, bars the jurisdiction of this Commission?
   2. Whether this Commission has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
   3. Whether the complaint filed is within limitation?
   4. Whether this complaint is maintainable or not because of the reason that possession of the relocated unit no.249-C has already been delivered to the complainants by the opposite party and sale deed has also been got executed?
   5. Whether the basic sale price quoted by the opposite party includes ECD and IDC or the complainants were required to pay the same, over and above the basic sale price?
   6. Whether there was any deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
   7. Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the relocated unit no.249-C?

 

9.           First of all, coming to the objection raised with regard to jurisdiction of this Commission in the face of existence of Arbitration clause contained in the agreement, it may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainant 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. Even the Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 against order dated 13.02.2018, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 10.12.2018. As such, objection raised by the opposite party in this regard stands rejected.
10.           The next question which needs consideration is with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, it may be stated here that this complaint had 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 unit purchased by the complainants 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.
11.           Now coming to the objection raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that the compromise deed dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure C-1) was executed between the parties at Chandigarh office of the opposite party. Furthermore, it also reveals that letter dated 18.03.2012 (Annexure C-2) was also sent by the opposite party to the complainants, from its Chandigarh office i.e. SCO No.143-144, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. It is further evident that email dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure C-3/9) was also sent by the opposite party from its Chandigarh office, to the complainants, meaning thereby that the Company was actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on business from its branch office at Chandigarh and personally work for gain hereat. Thus, a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. As such, it is held that this Commission at Chandigarh has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Objection taken in this regard, stands rejected.
12.           There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, initially, unit no.579-E was booked by the complainants in the project of the opposite party, in the manner stated above. It is also not in dispute that at the initial stage of transaction i.e. after booking of the unit no.579-E, dispute arose between the parties, with regard to some charges like EDC, IDC etc. as a result whereof, the opposite party vide letter dated 18.03.2012, Annexure C-2, clarified to the complainants that the basic sale price includes EDC and IDC. However, thereafter, when still the opposite party made separate demands towards EDC and IDC and also other grievance raised with regard to delay in possession, slow construction etc., were not redressed by the opposite party, the complainants had approached this Commission by way of filing consumer complaint bearing no.27 of 2013, which was dismissed as premature, vide order dated 10.09.2013.

                   It is also an admitted fact that thereafter vide compromise deed dated 11.11.2013, the matter with regard to charging of EDC/ IDC and other issues, was sorted out, and also the complainants were relocated unit no.249-C, Second Floor, in the same project. Agreement dated 29.09.2015 was executed between the parties in respect of relocated unit no.249-C. As per Clause 31 (a) of the said agreement, possession of the relocated unit was to be delivered latest by 01.02.2014 i.e. within  a period of 30 months (24 months plus 6 months) from the date of start of construction i.e. from 01.08.2011. It is also coming out from the record that there was delay of more than 24 months in handing over possession of the relocated unit, as possession was delivered on 24.02.2016, yet, there is nothing on record wherefrom it could be revealed that any compensation for delay in delivering possession of relocated unit no.249-C has been paid by the opposite party to the complainants. However, when request made by the complainants for making payment of compensation for the period of delay in delivering possession and also charging of excess EDC and IDC and other issues were still not resolved by the opposite party, they had approached the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, by way of filing consumer complaint no.730 of 2017 which was got dismissed as withdrawn, and thereafter they had filed Civil Suit No.2287 of 2018 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh, which was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2019, without prejudice to their legal right and filing the same before the Consumer and now they are before this Commission in the present complaint.

13.           Under above circumstances, the question now which needs consideration is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to get compensation for the period of delay in delivering possession or not?.

                   It may be stated here that admittedly booking of unit no.579-E, Second Floor, was made in favour of the complainants, vide agreement dated 14.03.2012. As per clause 23 of the said agreement, it was committed by the opposite party that possession of the unit in question will be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of start of construction with extended period of 6 months i.e. totaling 30 months. Admittedly, construction of the units took place in August 2011, as such, possession of the said unit was to be delivered to the complainants on or before 13.02.2014. Yet, as stated above, during the period intervening some dispute arose between the parties with regard to price of the unit no.579-E; terms and conditions of the agreement; raising of demand notices; slow construction; timely delivery/possession etc. as a result whereof, the matter went into litigation and finally parties arrived at amicable settlement by way of compromise deed dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure C-1).

14.           It is very significant to mention here that in order to resolve the issues aforesaid like timely delivery/possession etc., raised by the complainants vide the aforesaid compromise deed, they were relocated to unit no.249-C, Second Floor, in the same project. However, perusal of record surprised us, when we noted that instead of delivering timely possession of relocated unit no.249-C, even agreement in respect thereof was executed after a huge delay of more than 1 ½ years i.e. on 29.09.2015 and ultimately possession of the said relocated unit was admittedly delivered to the complainants on 24.02.2016. Thus, at this stage, for determining as to whether there was any delay in delivery of possession of relocated unit aforesaid, we have to refer clause 31 (a) of the agreement dated 29.09.2015, which reads as under:-

“The Company shall put its best efforts to complete the development of the Unit within 24 (Twenty Four) months or within an extended period of six months from the date of start of construction, subject to force majeure conditions as mentioned in Clause (b) hereunder] or subject to the Allottee(s) as well as other Unit Allottees 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 Unit 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.”

 

15.           From bare perusal of the afore-extracted clause, it reveals that possession of the relocated unit no.249-C was to be delivered to the complainants within a maximum period of 30 months, from the date of start of construction at the project site which admittedly is August 2011. In this manner, the opposite party had committed to deliver possession of the relocated unit by 01.02.2014 (30 months from the date of construction being 1^st August 2011). However, admittedly, in the present case, possession of the relocated unit was delivered only on 24.02.2016 instead of 01.02.2014, as such, there was a delay of more than 24 months. The opposite party was thus deficient in providing service to the complainants, on this score. By retaining the amount of compensation for the period of delay, the opposite party further indulged into unfair trade practice, thereby causing financial loss to the complainants. The complainants are, thus, held entitled to  get compensation for the period of delay, as sought for by them, in the prayer, in line with clause 31 (e) i.e. @Rs.10/- per square feet per month of built-up area of the relocated unit, for the period of delay aforesaid.  
16.           No doubt, Counsel for the opposite party contended with vehemence that since all the issues raised by the complainants, in the earlier complaints, referred to above, stood settled vide the compromise deed aforesaid, as such, now the complainants cannot seek any relief, as far as delayed compensation is concerned. We have considered the said contention but do not agree with the same.  It may be stated here that perusal of relevant contents of the said compromise deed, reveal that the parties arrived at compromise with regard to the issues raised by the complainants in respect of initially booked unit no.579-E only. Relevant part of the settlement deed reads as under:-

 

“AND WHEREAS the First Party has approached the Second party and has requested for an immediate settlement of all of the disputes of the First Party with respect of their booked Unit bearing no.579-E/Second Floor, situated in the said Project”  

 

No doubt, vide the said compromise deed, the opposite party agreed to relocate the complainants to unit no.249-C/Second Floor, in the same project, yet, the subject matter of the said compromise deed was for immediate settlement of all the disputes raised by the complainants in respect of unit no.579-E/Second Floor only and the complainants were relocated to unit no.249-C aforesaid. It is nowhere found mentioned in the said compromise deed that the opposite party had availed liberty to delay the delivery of possession of the relocated unit no.249-C for an indefinite period. Infact, relocation was done to resolve one of the issues (amongst the other issues raised as referred to above) regarding timely delivery of possession, whereas, in the present case, salt was added to the miseries of the complainants when instead of delivery of possession of the relocated unit by the stipulated date i.e. 01.02.2014, it was delivered after a delay of more than 24 months i.e. on 24.02.2016

                   Be that as it may, irrespective of the fact that compromise deed was executed on 11.11.2013 and fresh agreement in respect of relocated unit was executed after a huge delay i.e. on 29.09.2015, yet, as per clause 31 (a) of the said agreement dated 29.09.2015, the opposite party was bound to deliver possession of the relocated unit no.249-C within a period of 30 months from the date of start of construction i.e. latest by 01.02.2014 (date of start of construction being  1^st August 2011), failing which they have further committed, as per Clause 31 (e)  to pay compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet per month of the built-up area of the relocated unit, for the period of delay. Had there been any intention of the opposite party or any agreement between the parties, with regard to nonpayment of compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of relocated unit no.249-C, keeping in mind any terms and conditions of the said compromise deed, then the opposite party would not have mentioned Clause 31, referred to above, in fresh agreement dated 29.09.2015 with regard to timely possession as well as payment of compensation, in failure to do so. It is therefore held that there was delay on the part of the opposite party in delivering possession of relocated unit no.249-C to the complainants, for which they need to be compensated. Contention raised by Counsel for the opposite party in this regard stands rejected.

17.           Now we will decide the question, as to whether, EDC and IDC were included in the basic sale price of the unit in question or the complainants were required to pay the same, over and above, the basic sale price. It may be stated here that to come to any conclusion on this issue, we need to refer to the contents of letter dated 18.03.2012 (Annexure C-2) written by the opposite party to the complainants, in that regard:-

“In pursuance of the aforesaid clause regarding additional payment of External Development Charges (EDC) and Internal Development Charges (IDC) by the allottee to the Company, we hereby confirm that EDC and IDC at the rate applicable on the date of allotment has been included in the Basic Sale Price (BSP) of the plot and no additional payment would be demanded by the Company except there is any increase in EDC and IDC by the concerned government authorities.”

 

Perusal of contents of the afore-extracted letter makes it very clear that  EDC and IDC at the rate applicable on the date of allotment was inclusive of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) and no additional payment was to be demanded by the Company, except if there is any increase in EDC and IDC by the concerned government authorities. In  this view of the matter, the opposite party was not entitled to charge any EDC and IDC over and above the basic sale price of the unit in dispute. It is therefore held that in case the opposite party has received EDC and IDC from the complainants, over and above the basic sale price of the relocated unit, they are liable to refund the same to the complainants. 

18.           Now coming to the objection raised by the opposite party to the effect that since possession of the unit in question has already been delivered to the complainants by the opposite party and sale deed has also been got executed, therefore, there exists no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, it may be stated here that the same does not merit acceptance, in view of observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in Rita Chatterjee & Anr. Vs. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. & 3 Ors., First Appeal No. 1042 Of 2015, decided on 30 Mar 2017, wherein it was held as under:-

 “5.       On service of notice in the Complaint, instead of filing its Written Version, Opposite Party No.1, Respondent No.1 herein, preferred to file the afore-stated Application seeking dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the possession of the flat having been delivered to the Complainants in the year 2000, the Complaint filed in the year 2014 was miserably barred by limitation.  It is on this Application that the order impugned in this Appeal has been passed by the State Commission. Hence, the Appeal.

6.       We have heard Complainant No.2, who appears in person, and Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for all the Respondents, at some length.  We have also perused the Complaint and the supporting documents on record, in particular the afore-noted brochure; the general terms and conditions as also the covenants in the conveyance deed dated 26.03.2002,  defining the Complex in question, viz., Udita Complex, we are of the opinion that regard being had to the nature of relief claimed in the Complaint, some part of the cause of action  still continued in favour of the Complainants, even after taking possession of the flat in question and execution of the conveyance deed in respect thereof.  Hence, it was not a case where the Complaint could be dismissed at the threshold even without calling upon the Opposite Parties to state their stand in respect of each of the claims made by the Complainants in the Complaint.  At this juncture, we say no more lest any observation on the merits of the reliefs claimed in the Complaint may cause prejudice to either of the parties.”

In the present case also, since some part of cause of action with regard to payment of compensation for the period of delay in handing over possession of the relocated unit and also refund of excess amount received towards EDC and IDC was pending, this consumer complaint is maintainable. 

19.           As far as objection taken to the effect that the complaint filed is time barred, it may be stated here that the same needs rejection in view of the reason that the last cause of action arose to the complainants,  when possession of the relocated unit was delivered to them on 24.02.2016 and sale deed was executed on 11.03.2016 However, thereafter, when neither compensation for the period of delay in delivering possession was paid nor the excess amount so received by the opposite party towards EDC and IDC was  refunded to the complainants, they (complainants) had filed  consumer complaint bearing no.730 of 2017 before the  District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (earlier known as District Forum-I), on 20.10.2017, which was returned to them vide order dated 06.04.2018, for filing the same before the appropriate Forum. Thereafter, the complainants had filed Civil Suit No.2287 of 2018 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh, which was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2019, without prejudice to their legal right and filing the same before the Consumer. Thereafter, this complaint has been filed before this Commission on 12.03.2019. Thus, perusal of record shows that the complainants had approached the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, within a period of one and a half years from 24.02.2016, when despite making request for making  payment of  compensation for the period of delay and also to refund the excess amount received towards EDC and IDC, the opposite party failed to do so. No doubt, the complainants continued prosecuting their case before the other Forum/Court having defective jurisdiction or before the wrong Forum/Court, yet, there is nothing on record to prove that they were not prosecuting their case with due diligence. It is settled law that any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the court of the dispute on the merits comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right. While considering the provisions of Section 14 and its application, this Court observed that a proper approach will have to be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance cause of action rather than abort the proceedings, inasmuch as the section is intended to provide relief against bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum.  Thus, if the period spent before the Court/Forum, referred to above, is excluded, this complaint having been filed on 12.03.2019 is well within limitation. Objection taken by the opposite party in this regard stands rejected.
20.           Now coming to the plea taken by the opposite party to the effect that since no protest was ever raised by the complainants at the time of taking over possession of the relocated unit or even thereafter, as such, now  they cannot raise such an issue, it may be stated here that perusal of record reveals that the complainants, vide email dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure C-3/11) and letter dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure C-3/13) i.e. on the very next day of taking over possession of the relocated unit, requested the opposite party to pay them compensation for the period of delay, as per terms and conditions of the agreement. It was in a very clear-cut manner stated in the said documents that “So we would like to register our protest in this regard. Further, since there is delay of about two years in handing over the possession, you are requested to process the case for making payment of damages to us @Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month for the delay as per conditions agreed at the time of booking and remit the amount to us within  a period of 15 days.” However, despite that, the opposite party miserably failed to redress the grievance raised by the complainants. In this view of the matter, plea taken by the opposite party to the effect that since no protest was ever raised by the complainants at the time of taking over possession of the relocated unit or even thereafter, as such, now  they cannot raise such an issue, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
21.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs and the opposite party is directed as under:-
    1. To pay compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month of the built-up area of the relocated unit no.249-C aforesaid, for the period of delay in handing over possession, to the complainants i.e. starting from 01.02.2014 till 23.02.2016 alongwith interest @9% p.a. starting from 24.02.2016.
    2. To refund the excess amount, if any, received towards EDC and IDC, over and above the basic sale price, except enhanced amount if any, demanded by the competent authorities, to the complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date when the same was received by the opposite party from the complainants.
    3. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants as also deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
    4. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
    5. This order be complied within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the amounts mentioned at sr.no.(i), (ii) if any, shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint and @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at sr.no.s (iii) and (iv) from the date of passing this order, till realization.
22.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
23.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

07.10.2020

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Rg.