STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Sanjay Batra, S/o Sh. B.K. Batra, R/o F.No.103, Tower Chinar “Omaxe Parkwood Baddi”, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, permanent resident of Swaran Kunj, Jakhoo Temple Road, Shimla (H.P.)

……complainant

V e r s u s

1.      M/s Omaxe Limited, SCO No.143-144, Sector-8C,   Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

2.      M/s Omaxe Limited, Omaxe House 12, L.S.C., Kalka Ji, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

              .... Opposite Parties

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

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

              The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked a residential flat, with the Opposite Parties, in a Group Housing Project, under the name and style “ Omaxe Parkwoods” to be developed and constructed, on the land, situated at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (H.P.). On 07.05.2006, according to the construction linked plan, the complainant made payment of first installment, to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/-, as 15% of the Basic Selling Price (BSP). Flat No.103, in Chinar-A Tower, on first floor, having super area of approximately 145.48 sq.mt/or 1566 sq. ft., was allotted in favour of the complainant. An agreement dated 18.07.2007, was executed between the parties. The total price of the flat was Rs.20,93,780/-. It was stated that 95% payment, of the total price of flat, by way of installments, as per the construction linked plan, was made by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, by June 2008, at their Branch Office, at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the legal possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, within 18 months, from the date of signing the agreement, referred to above. The period of delivery of legal possession, could be extended by another six months. In any case, the legal possession of the flat was to be delivered, as per the agreement, referred to above, to the complainant, by the month of July, 2009. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties, a number of times, to handover the legal possession of the said flat, allotted to him, but they failed to do so, as per Clause 28(a) of the agreement aforesaid. It was further stated that the complainant, thereafter, served a legal notice dated 25.07.2009, upon the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied to by them, vide letter dated 24.08.2009. It was further stated that the complainant, also filed a complaint, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum only), seeking legal possession, as one of the reliefs. The same was, however, dismissed by the District Forum, for want of pecuniary Jurisdiction, and liberty was granted to the complainant, to file the same, before the Competent Court. It was further stated that the entire remaining payment towards the price of the flat, was also made by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, and, this fact was admitted by them, vide letter dated 22.12.2010, in the shape of “No Dues Certificate”.

2.           It was further stated that, during the pendency of the earlier complaint, physical (symbolic) possession of the flat, in question, was delivered to the complainant, on 30.12.2010, but the same could not be said to be legal, as no completion certificate had been obtained by the Opposite Parties, in respect of the Project, from the Competent Authorities. It was further stated that the letter Annexure C-10 dated 13.09.2010, was received by the complainant, from the Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority, Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2 (hereinafter to be referred as the HIMUDA only) vide which, he was informed that the licence of the Opposite Parties had been renewed till 03.07.2011. Vide this letter, it was further intimated by the HIMUDA, that the Opposite Parties had neither applied for the completion certificate, nor it (HIMUDA), had issued any completion certificate, in this regard. It was further stated that due to non-handing over of the legal possession of the flat, as stated above, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was ready and willing to get executed the sale deed/conveyance deed, after paying the requisite stamp duty, registration charges and other miscellaneous charges, but, in the absence of the completion certificate, the Opposite Parties, were unable to do so.

3.           It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to handover the legal possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant, on the basis of the price of the same, to the tune of Rs.20,93,780/-, already paid by him; handover the completion certificate, after obtaining the same, from the Competent Authorities; pay interest @18% P.A., on the amount of Rs.20,93,780/-, deposited, from June 2008, till the symbolic possession was given on 30.12.2010, and future interest till the handing over of legal possession; pay damages/compensation  to  the  tune  of   Rs.11,51,000/-, for   physical  harassment,  mental   agony,  loss of business and inconvenience caused to him, in routine commuting between Chandigarh and Baddi, till getting the symbolic possession i.e. 30.12.2010; pay/reimburse the amount of rent, paid by him, to the landlords, to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/-; and pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

4.             The Opposite Parties, in their written version, pleaded that this Commission, had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that this Commission, had no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as the reliefs claimed, in the complaint, were exaggerated and grossly overvalued. It was further pleaded that while dismissing the earlier complaint, filed by the complainant, before the District Forum, for want of pecuniary Jurisdiction, the liberty was granted to him, to file the one (complaint), on the same cause of action, but, instead, the complaint was filed by him, seeking so many other reliefs.  It was admitted that the complainant booked the flat, in the project, under the name and style of “ Omaxe Parkwoods” to be developed and constructed, on the land situated at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (H.P.)., of the Opposite Parties. It was also admitted that the complainant made payment of Rs.20,93,780/-, in all, towards the price of flat. It was also admitted that the agreement dated 18.07.2007, was executed between the parties. It was also admitted that the legal possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant, within 2 years (24 months) from the date of signing the agreement dated 18.07.2007. It was, however, stated that the payments were not made by the complainant, as per the schedule, but after delay. It was further stated that the symbolic possession was delivered to the complainant on 30.12.2010, during the pendency of the earlier complaint. It was further stated that even “No Dues Certificate” was issued, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant had been enjoying the physical possession of the flat, in dispute, and, thus, there was no question of any grouse, being raised by him. It was further stated that the delay, if any, in the execution of sale deed/conveyance deed was, on account of the technical reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

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

6.             The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted an affidavit of Harsh Bhargav, their Authorized Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

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

8.             The first question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the present complaint, or not. No doubt, the flat, in question, is situated at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (H.P.). For deciding, as to whether, this Commission, has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, or not, it is to be determined, as to whether, a part of cause of action accrued to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission or not. In Annexure C-16, the letter/reminder, which was written by the Branch Head (Commercial) of the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, according to Note 1, “all payments should be made in favour of “OMAXE LTD.” payable at New Delhi/Chandigarh only”. Similarly, in Annexure C-19, another letter, which was written by the Branch Head (Commercial) of the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, according to Note 2, “all payments should be made in favour of “OMAXE LIMITED.” payable at New Delhi/Chandigarh only”. It is further evident, from Annexure C-20, copy of the receipt, issued by the Opposite Parties, that account payee cheque dated 01.06.2008, in the sum of Rs.76,166/-, towards part price of the flat, was received by them, at Chandigarh. This photocopy of the receipt, bears the photo impression of the stamp of Omaxe Ltd., SCO 143-144, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. It is further evident, from Annexure C-21, copy of another receipt dated 22.12.2010, that account payee cheque, in the sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, towards part  price of the flat, in question, was received by an Authorized Signatory of the Opposite Parties, i.e. Omaxe Limited, SCO 143-144, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Both these receipts, therefore, clearly go to prove that some payments towards the price of flat, were made by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh, and, as such, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of Chandigarh. This Commission has, thus, got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, that this Commission had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

9.             The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission, has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. The complainant has sought one of the reliefs of legal possession of the flat, in question, as also delivery of completion certificate to him, by the Opposite Parties, after obtaining the same from the Competent Authorities, in relation to the said flat. The total price of the flat being Rs.20,93,780/-, has already been paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties. Not only this, the complainant has also sought other reliefs of compensation, rent and damages, as detailed in paragraph number 3 of this order. Section 17(1) of the Act, reads as under:-

“17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. 

 (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  to entertain—

(i)   complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and

(ii)   appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

(b)  to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any con­sumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”.

10.          Since, legal possession of the flat, in question, and delivery of completion certificate, after obtaining the same, from the Competent Authorities, alongwith compensation in the sum of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment, have been sought, the aggregate value of the goods or services, as well as of the compensation is required to be taken into consideration, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd., & Anr., II (1996) CPJ 103 (NC), a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which reads as under :-

“In our view, where a claim of compensation is pleaded in a consumer complaint, then the total value of the goods and/ or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction. It is the aggregate value of the goods and compensation or the aggregate value of the services as well as that of compensation that determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. As we read the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) [and for that matter the provisions of Section 11(1) and Section 21(a)(i) which are in pari-materia the criteria of the value of goods or services if claimed without any compensation would govern the jurisdiction of the Consumer FORA. Where the complainant gives the value of the goods and compensation or the value of the services and compensation, then the question arises whether each one of them should exceed or cross the hurdle of the pecuniary jurisdiction. In some cases, the value of the goods or the compensation claimed and for that matter the value of the services and the compensation claimed may be such that if considered separately it will fall in the jurisdiction of the District Forum or State Commission whereas if considered on the basis of the aggregate, it may fall within the jurisdiction of National Commission or State Commission. The intention of the Legislature is to give the jurisdiction to the Consumer FORA based on the total “value” of the goods and compensation, if any, or in other case the value of the services and compensation if any. Any other interpretation would lead to conflict of jurisdiction. Even though the Legislature has not mentioned the word aggregate before the word value of the goods or services, in the context of provisions of the Act, the intention is clear to give jurisdiction based on the quantum of reliefs put together, in other words, aggregate of the value of the goods and compensation or aggregate of the value of services and compensation, or on the aggregate value of the goods and services and compensation”

11.             In Kishori Lal Bablani Vs. M/s Aditya Enterprise  & Others, Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2012, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the complainant alleged deficiency, in rendering service, and adoption of unfair trade practice, by the Opposite Party-builder, in not handing over possession of the agreed flat No.705-B, VIIth Floor, measuring 1393 sq.ft., at Pranik Chambers, Saki Naka, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai, by the stipulated date i.e. 13.12.2006, despite payment of full consideration of the same, amounting to Rs.40,75,000/- Thus, the complainant sought the following reliefs:-

“i.    Deliver the possession of premises at 705-B, 7th Floor, ‘Pranik Chambers’, Saki Vihar Road,  Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai to the complainant, forthwith.

ii.    to charge outgoings for the premises only from the date of delivery of the possession of the said premises.

iii.   to pay interest @ 24% to the complainant on the instalments paid by the complainant on 25.08.2006 from 31.12.2006 (promised date of delivery of possession as per clause 10 of the agreement for sale) till the date of actual delivery of possession of the premises and to pay interest @ 24% to the complainant on the instalments paid by the complainant on 04.08.2007 and 24.10.2011 from the date of payment till the date of delivery of possession of the premises for the opportunity loss.

iv.   To pay Rs.15,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the complainant for causing mental stress, torture and towards advocate’s fee etc.

v.    Pass an order directing the opposite parties to complete the construction work of the building immediately and form a Co-operative Society of the purchasers so as to hand over possession of the building to the Society and forthwith transfer the conveyance of the property in the name of the said Co-operative Society.

vi.   Any other or further relief(s) which this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to grant in favour of the complainant in view of the facts of the above case”. 

12.          The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, came to the conclusion, that the complainant, mainly sought possession of the flat, in question, which he purchased at a price of Rs.40,70,000/-, besides some interest and compensation. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, thus, was of the opinion that the valuation of the claim, made by the complainant, being below Rupees One crore, the complainant was required to file the complaint, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having pecuniary Jurisdiction, in the matter. In the instant case the total price of the flat,  to the tune of Rs.20,93,780/-, by way of installments, as per the construction linked plan, was made by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, before the filing of complaint. Since the aggregate value of the goods or services and the compensation, claimed in this case exceeds Rs.20 lacs, but not beyond Rs.1 crore, this Commission, has pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint The objection, raised by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, that this Commission had no pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.          No doubt, in the written reply, the Opposite Parties, raised a plea, to the effect, that the reliefs claimed by the complainant, were grossly overvalued and exaggerated, so as to attract the Jurisdiction of this Commission. As stated above, the complainant sought the legal possession of the flat, total price whereof was Rs.20,93,780/-; delivery of completion certificate, by the Opposite Parties, after obtaining the same, from the Competent Authorities; rent in the sum of Rs.3,10,000/- for the period, for which he was deprived of the possession of the said flat, from June 2008 onwards; Rs.5 lacs, as damages/compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.6,51,000/- towards travelling expenses plus (+) litigation expenses. Whether these reliefs could, ultimately, be granted to the complainant or not, is a different matter. However, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the reliefs, claimed by the complainant, in the complaint, were grossly over valued or exaggerated, so as to attract the Jurisdiction of this Commission. Under these circumstances, the objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, in this regard, being devoid of merit must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.          It was, however, submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite  Parties,  that  while  dismissing  the complaint, which  was  earlier  filed  by  the complainant, in the District Forum, for want of pecuniary Jurisdiction, he was only granted the liberty to file the one (complaint), on the same cause of action, but he (complainant), claimed completely different reliefs, than the one, claimed in the earlier complaint, before the District Forum. It may be stated here, that the earlier complaint, which was filed by the complainant, before the District Forum, was only dismissed for want of pecuniary Jurisdiction. Since the District Forum had no pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, filed before it, by the complainant, any observation made by it, on any other point, on merits, could not be taken into consideration. Since, the complaint of the complainant, having been filed before the District Forum, was dismissed for want of pecuniary Jurisdiction, he had the liberty to file a fresh complaint, seeking whatever reliefs were available to him, in accordance with the provision of law. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that such reliefs could not be claimed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

15.          The symbolic, in fact, physical possession of the flat, in question, no doubt, has already been delivered to the complainant. However, it is to be seen, as to whether, such possession could be said to be a legal possession, or not. According to Annexure C-10 dated 13.09.2010, received by the complainant, from the HIMUDA, the Opposite Parties had not applied for the issuance of  completion certificate, and, as such, the question of issuance of the same, in their favour did not at all arise. In the absence of issuance of  completion certificate, in respect of the Project, in which the flats were constructed, to the Opposite Parties, by the Competent Authorities, even if physical possession of the flat, had been delivered to the complainant, it could not be said to be, in any way, legal. The possession of the complainant, in respect of the flat, could only be deemed to be legal, after the completion certificate is obtained by the Opposite Parties, from the Competent Authorities. By not obtaining the completion certificate of the Project, from the Competent Authorities, and handing over the possession of the flat, to the complainant on 30.12.2010, which by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be legal, the Opposite Parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

16.          The complainant has also made a prayer, in paragraph number 16 of the complaint, that he was ready and willing to get executed the sale deed, after payment of necessary stamp duty, registration fee, and other miscellaneous charges, if the legal possession of the flat, was given to him, after obtaining the completion certificate, from the Competent Authorities, by the Opposite Parties. The Consumer Foras are not fettered by technicalities. If any relief in the body of the complaint is sought, but the same is not included in the prayer Clause, and the Consumer Fora, comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the same, it can be granted. The Opposite Parties are, thus, liable to execute the conveyance deed/sale deed, in respect of the flat, in question, in favour of the complainant, after receipt of the completion certificate, from the Competent Authorities. 

17.          The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to interest, on the amount, deposited by him, with the Opposite Parties, and, if so, at what rate. The entire payment was made by the complainant, by 22.10.2010. The possession, as per Clause 28(a) of the agreement Annexure C-2 was required to be handed over within a period of 24 months, from the date of signing the same. The agreement was executed and signed on 18.07.2007. It means that the legal possession of the flat was required to be handed over to the complainant, by 18.07.2009. In the instant case, the physical/symbolic possession, though not legal, was handed over to the complainant on 30.12.2010, as admitted by the parties. This amount was certainly utilized by the Opposite Parties, from 19.07.2009 (last date of handing over possession being 18.07.2009) to 29.12.2010, without handing over the legal possession of the flat, to the complainant. There is, nothing, on the record, that the Opposite Parties were unable to complete the project, within the stipulated period, on account of the circumstances, beyond their control. For utilizing the amount, deposited by the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, he (complainant) is entitled to interest. Since physical possession, though not legal, has already been delivered on 30.12.2010, in our considered opinion, simple interest @6% P.A., if granted, from 19.07.2009 till 29.12.2010, on the amount deposited by the complainant, that would be fair, reasonable and adequate. It is, therefore, held that the complainant is entitled to simple interest @6% P.A., as indicated above.   

18.          The next question, that falls, for consideration, is as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation and, if so, to what extent. The complainant has claimed the total compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, loss in business, travelling expenses etc., to the tune of Rs.11,51,000/-. Clause 28(e) of the agreement Annexure C-2 reads as under:-

“However, in case of delay in construction of the said Apartment attributable to delay of Company subject to Clause (a) and (b) herein above, the Company would pay a sum at the rate of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per sq. ft. of Super Area per month for the period of delay to the Buyer(s), provided however that the Buyer(s) has made payment of all installments towards the sale consideration amount of the said Apartment in time and without making any delay to the company”

19.           A plain reading of the afore-extracted Clause, clearly goes to reveal that, in case of delay, in construction of the flat/apartment, it (Company) would pay Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per sq. ft. of Super Area, per month, for the period of delay to the Buyer(s). In the instant case, the entire price towards the flat was deposited by the complainant. The legal possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant on or before 18.07.2009. He was delivered physical possession of the flat on 30.12.2010, without obtaining the completion certificate from the Competent Authorities. Such possession, therefore, could not be said to be legal. Under these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to compensation @Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per sq. ft. of the super area, per month, for the period of delay i.e. from 18.07.2009, until the sale deed/conveyance deed is executed, in his favour, in respect of the flat, in question, by the Opposite Parties, after obtaining the completion certificate from the Competent Authorities.

20.          The next question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, by the Opposite Parties, by neither constructing the flat, by the stipulated date, nor delivering the legal possession of the same to him. The complainant continued depositing the amount, right from the year 2006. Ultimately, on 30.12.2010, he was only given symbolic/physical possession of the flat, in question, though the same could not be said to be legal, as admittedly, no completion certificate, in respect of the project, had been obtained by the Opposite Parties, as is evident from the letter dated 13.09.2010 Annexure C-10. At the cost of repetition, it could be said that delivery of possession of the flat, to the complainant, in the absence of completion certificate, having been obtained by the Opposite Parties, from the Competent Authorities, in respect of the project, could be said to be illegal. One can really imagine the mental condition of a person, who had deposited his hard earned money, for getting a flat, with a view to reside therein, but his hopes were dashed to the ground, as he was not given the legal possession, of the flat, as stated above. The complainant, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for which he is entitled to be compensated. It is settled principle of law, that interest and compensation can be granted simultaneously. Interest is granted for illegally and improperly retaining the money, due, to a person, whereas, compensation is granted for causing injury, on account of mental agony, physical harassment etc. Since, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for a sufficient longer time, in our considered opinion, if compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, is granted to him, it would be reasonable, fair and adequate. The complainant is, thus, held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lac, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, at the hands of the Opposite Parties.

21.          The complainant has also claimed rent, to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/-, alleged to have been paid by him, to the landlords. The complainant only produced on record, a copy of the Rent Deed, executed between Narinder Singh Gulati, Sh. Ajit Singh Gulati (landlords) and him (complainant), on 11.09.2009. In case, the amount of Rs.3,10,000/-, as rent had been paid by the complainant, as rent to the landlords, he could produce the receipts of the same. There is no tangible evidence, on record, to prove, that the complainant had actually taken on rent, the accommodation and paid the rent. Copy of the Rent Deed/Agreement, without the production of receipts, did not carry any weight. Under these circumstances, the claim of the complainant, for payment of amount of rent, cannot be said to be justified. The complainant is not entitled to the amount of rent, claimed by him.

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

23.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed, with costs, in the following manner:-

                        i.   The Opposite Parties are directed to execute and get registered the sale deed/conveyance deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the flat, in question, and deliver him legal possession of the same, after obtaining the completion certificate, from the Competent Authorities, within a period of 60 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

                       ii.   In the event of execution of the sale deed/conveyance deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the flat, in question, after obtaining the completion certificate, by the Opposite Parties, from the Competent Authorities, the stamp duty, registration fees and other miscellaneous charges, shall be paid by the complainant.

                     iii.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay simple interest @6% P.A., from 18.07.2009 to 29.12.2010, on the amounts deposited by the complainant upto 17.07.2009, and interest at the same rate on the amount(s) deposited after 17.07.2009, from the respective date(s) of deposit(s) till 29.12.2010, as indicated in paragraph number 17 above.  

                      iv.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant, compensation for delay @Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per sq. ft. of the super area, per month, for the period of delay i.e. from 18.07.2009, until the sale deed/conveyance deed is executed, in his favour, in respect of the flat, in question, by the Opposite Parties, after obtaining the completion certificate from the Competent Authorities, as per Clause 28(e) of the agreement Annexure C-5.

                       v.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant, compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, as indicated in paragraph number 20 above.

                      vi.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant, cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

24.          The aforesaid payable amounts, shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, within 60 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay penal interest @12% P.A., on the aforesaid amounts, from the date of default, till realization, besides execution and getting registered the sale deed/conveyance deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the flat, in question, and putting him in legal possession of the same, after obtaining the completion certificate, from the Competent Authorities, and payment of costs.

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

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

Pronounced.

November 1, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg