Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/255/2015

Jarnail Singh Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Yash Pal Gupta, Adv.

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	255 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	29.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	20.04.2016

 

Jarnail Singh Sandhu resident of House No.133, Sector 70, Mohali – Punjab.

……Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First Floor and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160 009 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), having its Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110 074, through its Managing Director.

….Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Yash Pal Gupta, Advocate  for  the complainants.

Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	249 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	26.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	20.04.2016

 

1.    Mr. Rajinder Kumar Dhingra son of Late Sh. Bhanu Parkash Dhingra.

2.    Mrs. Manju Dhingra, wife of Mr. Rajinder Kumar Dhingra.

       Correspondence Address:- House No.414, Sector 4,Panchkula, Haryana. 

……Complainants.

Versus

 

1. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074, through its Managing Director/Director/ Authorized Signatory.

2. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6 - 8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009, through its Managing Director/Director/ Authorized Signatory.

….Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                    SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate  for  the complainants.

Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                  

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              By this common order, we propose to dispose of two complaints bearing No.255/2015 and 249/2015, referred to above. Since the facts and issues involved in these complaints are almost identical, the facts are being culled from complaint case No.255 of 2015 titled as ‘Sh. Jarnail Singh Sandhu Vs. M/s PUMA Realtors Private Limited & Another’.

2.           The facts, in brief, are that in the year 2010, on the assurance of the Opposite Parties, the complainant expressed his interest to purchase a plot measuring 250.59 sq. yards @Rs.27,000/- per sq. yard plus EDC and IFMS in the project of the Opposite Parties, named, “IREO HAMLET”. Alongwith his application dated 30.06.2011 submitted for provisional booking of a residential plot, the complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/- as booking amount vide cheques dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure C-I colly.). He was provisionally allotted a plot on 30.06.2011 vide provisional allotment letter (Annexure C-II). The complainant opted for Time Linked Payment Plan, as per which, 95% of the total sale consideration was to be paid in 18 months from the date of booking and the remaining 5% on delivery of possession. Apart from the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,50,000/- the complainant also paid the amounts as detailed in Para iv. of the complaint, vide receipts (Annexure C-III Colly.) and, as such, he, in all, paid an amount of Rs.68,34,867/- plus Rs.35,135/- towards interest, totaling Rs.68,70,020/- to the Opposite Parties.  A Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties on 30.09.2011 (Annexure C-IV). On visiting the site in the year 2013 and 2014, the complainant was surprised to see that there was no development at all and the Opposite Parties completely failed to fulfill their promise by offering possession of the plot, in question, with all basic amenities. It was further stated that before handing over the possession of the plot, in question, the Opposite Parties were to complete all the development works and letters were issued to all the promoters of the Mega Projects to get completion certificates as per Govt. notification No.4966 dated 2.9.2014 (Annexure C-V). It was further stated that as per information obtained under RTI (Annexure C-VII), vertical roads/approach roads dividing Sectors 97-98 and horizontal roads dividing Sectors 86-98 were not built and could only be built after acquisition of lands.  It was further stated that the complainant wrote email dated 07.06.2015 (Annexure C-IX) to the Opposite parties to address his grievance but the Opposite Parties never reverted and failed to honour the terms of the Agreement.

3.           It was further stated that as per Clause 11 of the Agreement, possession of the plot, in question, was to be handed over within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement with further grace period of 6 months and another period of 12 months as extended period. The possession of the plot, in question was to be delivered at the most by 23.05.2015. It was further stated that notice of possession dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure C-XI) was issued by the Opposite Parties in a hurried manner without bothering to complete all development works at the colony/project. It was further stated that even the partial completion certificate in respect of the colony has not been issued by the Competent Authority, as per information obtained under RTI (Annexure XII). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties raised unreasonable demand of PLC of Rs.1,40,781.46 from the complainant stating that the plot is park facing, which fact was not mentioned in the Agreement and when there is no change in the site plan in respect of the plot allotted. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties to save themselves were forcibly giving possession to the complainant without basic amenities. It was further stated that complainant served legal notice(s) upon the Opposite Parties on 20.07.2015 (Annexure C-XV colly.).

4.           Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) claiming refund of Rs.68,70,020/- alongwith interest @15% per annum from the respective dates of deposits, withdraw the alleged notice of possession dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure C-XI); pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.

5.           The Opposite Parties, in their written statement, took-up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, due to existence of arbitration clause No.33 in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 30.09.2011; that the complainant was not a consumer as the present complaint related to the enforcement of agreement to sell/purchase of a residential plot i.e. an immoveable property and hence was not covered under the Act; that the complainant did not hire any services of the Opposite Parties, as the parties did not enter into any contract for hiring the services; that the complainant did not book the plot for his personal use but for investment/commercial purpose and that the allegations in the complaint being of contractual nature, were only triable by the Civil Court.

6.           On merits, it was stated that the complainant, after having satisfied in all aspects, applied for booking of a plot vide application dated 27.06.2011 by paying a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards booking amount. It was further stated that bare perusal of the application for booking and the Agreement, showed that the complainant examined all the documents with respect to the title, approvals, sanctions, layout plan etc. and authority of the Opposite Parties and after satisfying themselves about all aspects of the project, he exercised his own discretion to apply for the plot, in question. It was further stated that the complainant vide recital No. ‘K’ of the said Agreement himself represented that he was not influenced by any kind of sales brochures, advertisements, representations, warranties etc. and he had relied upon his own independent investigations while deciding to purchase the plot, in question. It was denied that the complainant was assured that the possession would be handed over within a period of 30 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was further stated that the period of handing over of the plot was subject to the complainant complying with all his obligations under the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that as per Clause 11 of the Agreement, the period for offering possession travels beyond the alleged period of 30 months since the complainant duly agreed to receive delayed compensation @Rs.50/- per sq. yard of area of the plot every month until actual date fixed by the Opposite Parties for handing over of possession.

7.           It was further stated that Plot No.175, which was provisionally allotted to the complainant, was park facing and Rs.500/- per sq. yards as PLC is clearly mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ of the Letter of Provisional Allotment dated 30.06.2011. It was further stated that the complainant booked the plot after fully satisfying himself in all respects. It was further stated that at the time of applying for the booking of the plot, only the time linked payment plan was applicable. It was denied that 95% of the total sale consideration was to be made within 18 months from the date of booking and rather, the same was to be made within 18 months from the date of allotment. It was further stated that the complainant made default of 285 days in making payment of the due installment. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have developed the project in terms of Clause 21.2 of Agreement by complying the law of land and conditions and offered the possession after developing the same having basic amenities, vide notice of possession dated 12.05.2015. It was further stated that development of the site was in full progress from its inception on 01.05.2013. It was further stated that the complainant in order to avoid payment of balance sale consideration and execution and registration of conveyance deed filed the present complaint after receipt of notice of possession dated 12.05.2015.

8.           It was further stated that the project is approved under the provisions of Punjab State Industrial Policy 2003 and Government of Punjab in furtherance of Letter of Intent dated 30.09.2005 vide its Notification dated 14.08.2008 had exempted the Opposite Parties from the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short ‘PAPRA 1995) except Section 32 thereof. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have duly complied with the terms and conditions of the same and as such, they were/are under no obligation to obtain any completion/partial completion from the Authority under Section 14 of PAPRA 1995. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 has already installed the STP and the same is fully functional at the site, as is clear from the report of the Local Commissioner. It was further stated that electricity line has already been provided by PSCPL to the Opposite Parties at the site for construction purposes. It was denied that the Opposite Parties ever promised to construct boundary wall of the said project.

9.           It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never represented or agreed that it would be providing boundary wall to the said project. It was further stated that the rear boundary wall to be constructed by each plot owner shall ultimately serve as the boundary wall. It was further stated that the cost of boundary wall of the villas were to be borne by the allottees and further that near the entry gate, the same has been fenced by laying the grills of sufficient height and the said portion has been developed as a green area. It was further stated that the development work, as per Clause 21.2 of the Agreement at the site was complete before offer of possession of the plot to the complainant and a certificate issued on 30.10.2015 by Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Bhatia, Project-in-Charge, IREO Hamlet, Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Annexure OP-39). It was further stated that offer of possession has been made only after fully developing the plot but the complainant is just seeking an escape route from discharging his contractual obligation in order to wriggle out of the said Agreement. It was further stated that vide email dated 07.06.2015, the complainant has admitted that the basic amenities like sewer lines, electrical and plot layout have been done and internal roads have been developed but the blacktop is pending.

10.         It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had laid all the basic amenities viz. sewerage/sewer line, sewerage treatment system, waterlines, drinking water supply, drainage, electricity load distribution system, electrical lines, rain water harvesting system,/storm water disposal system, laying of roads etc. It was denied that even today, there is no development at the site as LC report is self sufficient to negate the said allegation.  It was further stated that the sector roads were to be developed by the State Authorities in terms of Clause 21 of the Agreement. It was further stated that all basic amenities, which are required for starting construction of a residential house, are available at the site. 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.

11.         The complainant filed replication, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated the same, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.

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

13.         The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavits of Sh. Rajneesh, their Authorised Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

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

15.         It is evident, on record, that the complainant vide provisional allotment letter dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure C-II) was allotted plot No.175 in the residential project “IREO Hamlet” admeasuring 250.59 sq. yards, Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali, the basic sale price whereof was Rs.27,000/- per sq. yard besides External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1,275.10 per sq. yard, totaling Rs.67,65,930/-. Admittedly, Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties on 30.09.2011 (Annexure C-IV). The payment against the aforesaid plot was to be regulated as per payment plan (at Page 82 of the file). Against the total price of Rs.71,73,164/-, the complainant made payment in the sum of Rs.68,70,020/-. It is also evident that the Opposite Parties offered change of payment plan from Time Linked Payment Plan to the Development Linked Payment Plan vide letter dated 26.09.2011 and the complainant did not raise any objection, to the same. As admitted by the Opposite Parties, the development work started at the site only on 01.05.2013, almost two years after the execution of Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure C-IV).  

16.         The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 Act (in short 1996 Act), this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, this Commission elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha’s case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra), it was held in Para 19 as under:-

“19. It was specifically observed that even in those cases, where two different redressal Agencies/Acts, have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. Taking note of a weak position, in which a consumer is set against multinational companies and other big producers, it was said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),that, where there is any ambiguity in understanding the meaning of provision of law, or where two interpretations are possible, one beneficial to the consumer should be accepted. The same view was reiterated in LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC).”

This Commission after dealing with with the unamended/amended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 3 of 1986 Act, and in view of law laid down in judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy  &  anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC); DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013; Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013; judgments of National Commission in Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited’s case (supra), and Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors., First Appeal No. 127 of 2016, decided on 18.03.2016, came to the conclusion that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also by the National Commission in a large number of cases, Section 3 of 1986 Act provides for an additional remedy available to a consumer and the said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act. Further the remedy under the 1986 Act is cost effective and much speedier than the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Referring the matter to the Arbitrator would defeat the very purpose of General Assembly Resolution No.39/248 and the provisions of 1986 Act and in view of above, the plea raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (in that case), was rejected. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Further this Commission in case titled ‘Sukhjinder Singh Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd.’, Complaint Case No.278 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2016, held as under:-

“Not only as above, execution of judgment/decree passed by the Consumer Foras is very easy and less time consuming. Invariably, in all the judgments passed, between one to three months’ time, is granted to the judgment debtors(s) to discharge liability. If it is not so done, and the order is not stayed in the meantime by the Higher Fora, two options are available with the complainant/decree holder. Section 25 of 1986 Act provides the procedure to enforce orders by the Consumer Foras. In Sector 25 (3), it is provided that where any amount is due from any person, under an order passed by any Consumer Fora, the concerned Consumer Fora, on an application moved by the decree holder, may issue a certificate to the Collector of the District, to recover the said amount, by way of land revenue, in  terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The said provision is also very stringent. The Collector is supposed to attach the holding of the judgment debtors to take the said property under his own management and control. The Collector is further supposed to manage the said property and raise all rents and profits accruing therefrom to the exclusion of the defaulter, until the decree is satisfied. The above procedure will consume at the maximum four to six months, for realization of the amount awarded. Further option is also available to a complainant/decree holder, to move an application under Section 27 of 1986 Act, which provides that where a trader or a person against whom, a complaint was made, fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Fora, such party would entail award of punishment of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one month, but may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and may be extended upto Rs.10,000/-, or both. This provision is very effective, as and when application is moved under Section 27 of 1986 Act, for fear of imprisonment, it is seen that immediately the judgment debtor(s) make an attempt to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Foras. Whereas, to the contrary Section 36 of 1996 Act, provides that award shall be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner, as if it was a decree of a Court. Such a procedure is very costly and time consuming. Executing a decree would virtually mean fighting one more litigation, in a Court, to get enforcement of the award. If such a procedure is adopted, it will defeat the very purpose and spirit of 1986 Act. Accordingly, in this view of the matter and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected.”   

 

In view of position stated above, the plea of the Opposite Parties is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

17.         To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that since the complainant had purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, he would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of 1986 Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, 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. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the plot, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs  Nirmala Devi Gupta,  Revision Petition No. 3861 of 2014, decided on 26.08.2015.The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

 

18.         Another objection was raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Agreement, in respect of the immoveable property, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the opposite parties, for purchasing the plot, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11.1 of the  Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to deliver physical possession of the unit, within a period of 30 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), with complete basic amenities, as provided in Clause 21.2. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

 

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

 

 

 

19.         From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, for specific performance, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the objection of Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

 

20.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the development and the basic amenities were complete at the site before offering possession vide letter dated 12.05.2015 or not. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that possession of the plot, in question, vide letter dated 12.05.2015 was not complete, valid and legal possession and the same was offered by the Opposite Parties to cover up their deficiency and delay in offering the possession.    

 

21.       This Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.  and  another’s  case  (supra),  in  Para  36  held that  basic

 

facilities like roads, sewerage, drinking water, electricity, street lights, drainage etc. were to be provided by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. In the case in hand, there is also nothing, on record, that complete development, in respect of the plot, in question, and amenities at the site as promised, as per the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 30.09.2011, Annexure C-IV, were available at the site. Had the amenities been completed at the site, then certainly the Opposite Parties, being in possession of the best evidence, having engaged a number of engineers/architects, would have placed, on record, their reports, to prove that factum. Though the Counsel for the Opposite Parties pleaded that the basic amenities such as water lines, sewer lines, etc., were required to be provided underground and the same have been provided, but they failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that all other amenities at the site where the plot, in question, was located were complete and necessary approvals had been obtained before they (Opposite Parties) offered possession vide their letter dated 12.5.2015. Even if the contention of the Opposite Parties that certain underground amenities have been provided is accepted, the fact that certain amenities and approvals were complete/obtained after offer of possession, clearly proves their deficiency, as is evident from the position indicated hereinafter. It is evident from letter dated 14.5.2013 (Annexure OP-8), the validity of NOC from Pollution Angle by Punjab Pollution Control Board was for one year from the date of its issue or till the complete development of residential colony, whichever is earlier. The same was extended vide letter dated 9.12.2014 (Annexure OP-9) up-to 13.5.2015. The Opposite Parties have not placed any document on record that they had NOC from Pollution angle beyond 13.5.2015. They had apparently no NOC, when possession was offered on 12.05.2015. The same was extended subsequently vide letter dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure OP-10). Final NOC was granted by PSPCL on 08.07.2015 (Annexure OP-13) after notice of possession dated 12.05.2015. Perusal of Annexure OP-14, which is memo dated 07.08.2015 from Punjab Electrical Inspectorate, reveals that installations were approved for commissioning only on 07.08.2015. Even letter dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure OP-12) from Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), informed the Opposite Parties that “…….Therefore, the arrangements for suitable provision for drinking water supply and safe disposal of sullage/storm discharge and solid waste management shall be made by promoter at his level separately and he shall obtain all necessary approvals from the concerned Authorities as per law in this regard independently. The construction work shall commence only after obtaining approvals as per law from the concerned Authorities……” Besides, number of other conditions were also required to be complied with by the promoter. The Opposite Parties have not stated whether they complied with the aforesaid conditions. Certificate dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure OP-39), given by Sh. Sukhwinder S. Bhatia, General Manager (Project Manager), stating that the works of laying of sewerage & storm water piping, water supply DI piping, electrical cable, GSB & WBM in the internal roads, fixing Kerb stone, drain channels, construction of rainwater harvesting system, bore well for drinking water, roadside street lights poles and landscaping of area earmarked as parks have been completed; is not of much help to the Opposite Parties, when it is clearly evident from the documents of Opposite Parties itself that certain amenities/approvals were completed/obtained after offer of possession on 12.5.2015.

22.         In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra), we have noted with concern, in Para 46, a very serious deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties, in providing service to the complainant, which is extracted hereunder:-

“As per admitted facts on record, External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1275.10 per square yard, are payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. Service tax is also payable by the complainant. As per record, EDC and service tax amount was paid in steps, by the complainant to the opposite parties. As per law and otherwise also, it is expected that the said amount might have been deposited by the opposite parties with the Government/Local Authorities, to provide necessary external infrastructure needed for enjoyment of the plots/units purchased by the consumers. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, 30 months period was available without penalty, with the opposite parties to press with the Government, on payment of EDC, for providing necessary external infrastructure. Very conveniently, in Clause 21.2 it was provided by the opposite parties that they shall carry out only internal development, within the boundary of the project, which includes laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. However, the external linkages for those services, beyond the periphery of the project, is to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. Even if it is presumed, only for the sake of arguments, as on today, the opposite parties may have laid down water lines, sewer lines, storm water drains, roads, electricity, horticulture etc., within the project, admittedly, those lines are not connected with the main lines, to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. For a proper use of plots/units purchased, it is necessary that those lines are connected with the main lines, so that there is no hindrance in enjoying the property purchased.

       There is nothing on record to show that after depositing of EDC, as collected by the opposite parties from the consumers, the said amount was deposited with the Government, in time, and further the matter was taken up with the Government, to provide external infrastructure connecting the project with the main sewerage lines etc. The opposite parties had 30 months of time, which this Commission feels, was sufficient for the State Government or the Local Authorities to complete external infrastructure. It is bounden duty of the real estate developer/opposite parties to ensure that the external infrastructure is complete by the time, possession is to be delivered. If the Local Authorities were not acting, despite receipt of EDC, it was duty of the real estate developer, to take legal recourse. In the present case, it was not done so.  The opposite parties cannot wash of their hands by simply stating that external infrastructure will be provided by the State Government/Local Authorities. If the external infrastructure is not provided, where will the purchasers go? How their grievance will be redressed. If the requisite infrastructure is not available, the developed colonies will turn into slums, within few years. Such a development cannot be termed as regulated development. By not making any efforts, in taking up matter with the State Government/Local Authorities, to ensure that external infrastructure is provided within the stipulated period, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in providing service.”

Thus, the Opposite Parties also cannot wash off their responsibility for non-development of external infrastructure on the ground that the same was the obligation of the State Government. When they (Opposite Parties) have received External Development Charges, they were duty bound to ensure by pursuing with the State Government that external infrastructure was complete. It was obligatory on part of the Opposite Parties to handover possession to the complainant complete in all respects but they miserably failed to do so. Clearly development and amenities were not complete when possession was offered on 12.5.2015, and provision contained in Clause 11.5 of Plot Buyer’s Agreement was not complied with.

23.         Otherwise also, as has been held in large number of cases, the payment of paltry amount of compensation, virtually would amount to no compensation for the loss caused to a consumer. The amount offered is not even equal to simple interest being offered by the Banks, against saving bank account. On account of inaction, on the part of the Opposite Parties, in not fulfilling their obligation under the contract, the very purpose of Agreement has failed and it is open to the complainant to claim refund of his amount, with interest, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 11.3 of the Agreement. In Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. and other, Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 (alongwith other 23 connected cases), decided by the National Commission on 08.06.2015, the agreement between the flat buyers and the developers, M/s. Unitech ltd. for payment of compensation on account of delay in completion of the construction of the apartment was fixed at the rate of Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month of the Super Area. In the aforesaid case, it was contended on behalf of the developers that the complainants were entitled only to the agreed quantum of compensation for the period the project was delayed. Rejecting the said contention, the National Commission in Para 12, inte-ralia, held as under:-

“12……..The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation, which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this very project. This gives credence to the allegation of the complainants that their money has been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r)(1) of the Act that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices enumerated in Section 2(r)(1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be evident from the use of word “including” before the words “any of the following practices”

 

24.         The complainant has specifically challenged the offer of possession by way of filing the instant complaint for not obtaining necessary approvals from the Competent Authorities by the Opposite Parties and lack of development and basic amenities at the site. When we look into interse communication between the parties, it becomes apparently clear that there was a promise to make development and then hand over possession of the plot, to the complainant. On receipt of possession letter dated 12.5.2015, the complainant expressed his concern about delay of the project and non-completion of promised basic amenities/facilities and sent email dated 07.06.2015 (Annexure C-IX) to the customer care of the Opposite Parties, that he visited the site of the Opposite Parties on 07.06.2015 itself, where he was allotted plot, and was highly disappointed by noticing certain shortcomings in the plot and the project. The aforesaid email, being relevant, is extracted as under:-

“To

IREO Hamlet

Mohali

Subject:- Regarding notice of possession for plot no.175 at Ireo Hamlet Mohali.

I am in receipt of notice of possession for plot no.175 at Ireo Hamlet Mohali.

Today I visited the site of Ireo Hamlet project to see the family dream plot. But it highly disappointed us and observed following few shortcomings in the plot and project.

The main sector dividing road dividing sector 97 and 98 on which this project is situated has not been still earmarked by GMADA. The land is still to be acquired by GMADA. Hence the approach to the plot is not feasible and hence the project is not fit for possession at the time.

The IREO HALMET Project has no boundary wall and hence one cannot proceed for construction on the site and hence the project cannot be called as complete.

The internal roads has not been developed and are still without blacktop.

Only sewer lines, electrical and plot layout has been done, plot numbering is still to be done. It may be clarified that where our sewerage being disposed off, whether there are GMADAs main sewer lines or some other arrangement has been done. The approach road from sector 98-99 road approaching the site has also not been developed, it is same as it was four years back at the time of launch of this project, it seems that nothing has been done for the development of project only plot area has developed by lying sewer lines, electrical and roads that to without black top. It seems that this much development work has been done only with a target to extract payment from buyers.

From the above points, it can be easily drawn that the project is not complete and hence demanding full and final payment and possession of plot is not justified.

The above points are as I observe as a layman if you do not agree with then company shall feel happy to provide a copy of completion certificate from competent authority. This will strengthen our faith in RIREO.

Therefore it is requested that this notice of possession may be withdrawn immediately till the project is not completed in each and every aspect.

Further it is clarified that I have already paid 95% and have no difficulty in making the balance payment. Our payment is ready and I shall make the payment as soon as I receive the clarifications on my above raised points or completion certificate from competent authorities is provided.

An early action in the matter may please be taken.

Thanking you.

Sincerely yours.

Jarnail Singh Sandhu

Date 07-06-2015”

 

On getting no response to his email dated 07.06.2015, the complainant sent subsequent email dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure C-X colly.) to the Opposite Parties, requesting them to decide the issue on urgent basis. He sent another email dated 10.06.2015 to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-X colly.), relevant portion whereof is extracted hereunder;-

“……As I have paid 95% payment to the company and balance 5% is being withheld due to want of clarification from your end and company shall not blame/charge me for late payment.

Delay in reply from your end confirms that company does not have any satisfactory reply.

Delay in hearing from your side is compelling me to think legally to save my hard earned money.

Non reply from your side confirms/shows that your notice of possession is not justified and stands withdrawn till completion certificate is not received.”

 

The complainant also sent legal notice dated 20.07.2015 wherein he pointing out deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and unfair trade practice, sought refund of Rs.68,34,867/- plus Rs.35,153/- on account of interest alongwith 15% interest.

25.       Though it is evident from Memo No.5001 dated 7.8.2015 (Annexure OP-14), which is letter from the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. Punjab, Patiala wherein it was stated that inspection of subject cited electrical installation was carried out by the Electrical Inspector and the same was found to be conforming to the relevant provisions of Central Electricity Authority (Measure relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 and the installations were approved for commissioning but clearly, this approval was accorded after offer of possession on 12.05.2015.

26.       Even the final NOC to the Opposite Parties for 85.25 Acres residential township in Sectors 86, 98 and 99 in Village Sambhalkhi, SAS Nagar, Mohali was accorded by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 8.7.2015 (Annexure OP-13), after offer of possession on 12.05.2015. Further from perusal of information obtained under RTI dated 10.08.2015, Annexure C-XII, at Page 107 of the file, it is established that the Opposite Parties (M/s PUMA Realtors Private Limited) have not been issued completion certificate in respect of Sector 98, where the plot allotted to the complainant is located. It is also evident from Annexure C-V colly., which are copies of information under RTI dated 03.07.2015 and 11.06.2015 that the Oppostie Parties had to complete the development work in order to handover the possession of the plots/flats and through Notification No.4966 dated 2-9-14 of the government, the letters had been issued to all the Mega projectors to get their completion certificates. It is also evident from email dated 11.06.2015 that M/s PUMA Realtors Private Limited, Sector – 86, 98, 99, 105 and 106 has not applied for the Completion Certificate for the Mega Project. Further, the Opposite Parties have themselves, placed on record copy of application dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure OP-33), which clearly shows that they (Opposite Parties) applied for partial completion certificate for Sectors 86, 98 and 99, SAS Mohali only on 29.06.2015 that too after offer of possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant on 12.05.2015. The Opposite Parties have averred that they were exempted under PAPRA, except provisions of Section 32 thereof, vide notification dated 14.8.2008 and were not required to obtain completion certificate and they applied for partial completion certificate only for the benefit of the complainants. It may be stated here that as per Govt. Notification No.4966 dated 02.09.2014, all the promoters of Mega Projects were required to get a completion certificate. In the instant case, possession was offered on 12.05.2015 but the Opposite Parties applied for partial completion certificate on 29.06.2015. Irrespective of the fact whether completion certificate was required to be obtained or not, it is abundantly clear from the evidence on record that amenities were not complete when possession was offered.

27.         The Opposite Parties committed breach of their obligations by not offering possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period. Offer sent vide letter dated 12.5.2015 is held to be a mere paper possession. In view of law settled by the National Commission in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill’s case (supra), it is justifiable for the complainant to say no to the same. Therefore, the principle of law laid in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. On account of that, the complainant is entitled to get refund of amount deposited by him. In view of aforesaid position, the Opposite Parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to her, as also escalation in prices.

28.         The next question which falls for consideration, is, whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by him. It may be stated here that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was entered into between the parties on 30.09.2011 (Annexure C-IV). As per Clause 11.1 of General Clauses of the Agreement, possession of the plot, in question, was to be handed over within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement with further grace period of 6 months but not later than 30 months i.e. latest by 29.03.2014. Further, as per Clause 11.2 of the Agreement, in case, possession was not offered within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties were liable to pay compensation calculated @Rs.50/- per sq. yard of the area every month until possession is actually handed over. Clauses 11.1 and 11.2 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 30.09.2011, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“11.1 - Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein, and further subject to the Allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and not being in default of any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges, and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to hand over the possession of the said Plot to the Allottee within a period of 24 (Twenty Four) months from the date of execution of this Agreement (“Commitment Period”). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 6 (Six) months (“Grace Period”), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period.

11.2-Subject to Clause 11.1, if the Company fails to offer possession of the said Plot to the Allottee by the end of the Grace Period, it shall be liable to pay to the Allottee compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sq. yd. of the area of the said Plot (“Delay Compensation”) for every month of delay until the actual date fixed by the Company for handing over of possession of the said Plot to the Allottee. The Allottee shall be entitled to payment against such ‘Delay Compensation’ only after completion of all documentation including registration of the Conveyance Deed”.

29.         Since the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 30.09.2011, 30 months period including 6 months grace period expired on 29.03.2014. Even 12 months extended period, in terms of Clause 11.3 of the Agreement expired on 29.03.2015. The possession was offered on 12.05.2015 vide letter (Annexure C-XI), even beyond the extended period i.e. after lapse of around 45 months of execution of Agreement. The complainant filed the instant complaint on 29.10.2015. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the complainant could exercise option of termination only up-till dispatch of the Notice of Possession by the Opposite Parties to him whereupon the said option was deemed to have irrevocably lapsed. Whether mere offer of possession without complete development and basic amenities and that too after a delay, would disentitle the complainant to claim refund of amount paid or not. In a similar case relating to delayed possession, titled as Guninder Jeet Singh Salh Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Consumer Complaint No. 113 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 23.09.2015, noting ratio of the judgment of the National Commission, in the case of Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), it was said that the consumer can claim refund. The National Commission was dealing with a similar situation, in the above case. In that case also, possession was not offered within the stipulated period. The consumer complaint was filed by the complainant, before this Commission, claiming refund of the amount paid by him. This Commission took it as a case of rescinding of contract and allowed the Opposite Parties to forfeit 10% of the deposited amount. The above named builder went in appeal, which was dismissed, by the National Commission, holding as under:-

“It is apparent from the above clause, that possession of the apartment was to be handed over within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment,  with  grace period of 3 months. Admittedly, no possession was offered to the original allottee or to the respondent, till 26.11.2011 when she stepped into the shoes of original allottee. Thus, on the date of accepting the present respondent as allottee on 26.11.2011, the apartment in question was not complete.

23.    As appellants did not offer possession within the period prescribed under Clause 21 of the ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, the deficiency on the part of appellants,  started right from that very moment. It is an admitted fact, that while offering the possession even in the year 2013, appellants sent letter dated 13.5.2013 and  respondent was asked to deposit sum of Rs.3,05,969.70, within 30 days. When payment of the instalments is construction linked,  then we fail to understand as to how  before completing the construction appellants demanded the aforesaid amount.  This act of appellants goes on to show, that even on 13.5.2013 construction of apartment was not complete. It was only vide letter dated 16.8.2013, appellants offered possession of the apartment, subject to certain payments.

24.    Thus, appellants themselves have violated the material conditions with regard to handing over of the possession, now it does not lie in their mouth to demand further payment from  the respondent. Even assuming for arguments sake, that payment as demanded vide letter dated 16.8.2013 was due, but the respondent was fully justified in not making the payment, when appellants failed to complete the construction and handover the possession, within the agreed period.  Appellants could not force the respondent, after having accepting money from the original allottee in the year 2006 and  part payment from present respondent in the year 2011, to accept possession of the apartment in the year 2013,  which was against the terms of the Agreement.  The above facts clearly goes on to show, that appellants have been enjoying the substantial amount of money received by them in the year 2006, till 2013.  Therefore, this plea of appellants, that they have done their part of the duty and it is the respondent who is defaulter, does not hold any water.

25.    The deficiency on the part of appellants is writ large in this case. We may note, that under such circumstances there was no occasion for the State Commission to have deducted 10% of the deposited amount as respondent was not at fault at all. On the other hand, appellants were deficient when they themselves have violated the terms and conditions of ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, The case law relied by ld. counsel for appellants are not applicable at all to the facts of the present case.”

 

 

 

30.       It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill ‘s case (supra), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. In the above case, it was laid down as a matter of fact that non-acceptance of possession after the agreed date, would not amount to rescinding of contract.

31.       In the present case also, the Opposite Parties committed breach of their obligation, in not offering possession of the plot, in question, within 30 months from 30.09.2011 i.e. date of signing of Buyer’s Agreement and even after expiry of extended delay period of 12 months, on 29.3.2015. As a matter of fact, possession of the plot was offered only on 12.05.2015, that too without basic amenities. A perusal of Clause 11.3 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement clearly provides that “……..from the end of the Grace Period (such 12 month period hereinafter referred to as the “Extended Delay Period”), then the Allottee shall become entitled to opt for termination of the Allotment/ Agreement and refund of the actual paid up installment(s) made against the said Plot….”. When the Opposite Parties are charging interest for any delay in making payment of installments, their plea that the complainant cannot invoke provisions of Clause 11.3 of the Agreement is not justified being unreasonable. It, therefore, means that the complainant is entitled to refund of amount/installments paid by him. In our opinion, Clause 11.1 cannot have overriding effect over Clause 11.3 of the Agreement. Thus, in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount and by not refunding the same, the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service. Thus, since the Opposite Parties failed to handover legal and valid possession of the plot, in question, with complete development and all basic amenities, to the complainant, even after expiry of 42 months from the execution of Plot Buyer’s Agreement, in view of law laid down in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill ‘s case (supra), the complainant was entitled to seek refund.

32.       From the aforesaid discussion, it is evidently clear that neither the Opposite Parties have completed the development and basic amenities nor did they have all the necessary sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities up-till 12.05.2015 when offer of possession was made. Thus, the contention of the complainant that possession offered was not a valid and legal possession is corroborated from the evidence on record. It is, therefore, held that the Opposite Parties were not only deficient, in rendering service but also indulged into unfair trade practice, by offering a paper possession to the complainant, before completing the basic amenities as also without obtaining the necessary sanctions/approvals.

33.         It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.68,70,020/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the Opposite Parties were charging heavy rate of interest, for the period of delay in making payment of installments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest. It was also so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20^th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, to the tune of Rs.68,70,020/- alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12% from the respective dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Parties, in case of delayed payment), till realization.

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

35.          For the reasons, recorded above, this complaint bearing No.255 of 2015 alongwith connected complaint bearing No.249/2015 are partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed in the following manner:-

 

Complaint Case No.255 of 2015 titled ‘Jarnail Singh Sandhu Vs. M/s Puma Raltors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’

 

(i)    To refund the amount of Rs.68,70,020/-, to   the   complainant, alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12%, from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)   To pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  (Rupees              Three Lacs only), to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iv)  In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest compounded quarterly @15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) and (ii) above, with interest compounded quarterly @12% from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Complaint Case No.249 of 2015 titled ‘Mr. Rajinder Kumar Dhingra  & Anr. Vs. M/s Puma Raltors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’

 

(i)    To refund the amount of Rs.66,56,354/-, to   the   complainants, alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12%, from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)   To pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees              Three Lacs only), to the complainants, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iv)  In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest compounded quarterly @15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) and (iii) above, with interest compounded quarterly @12% from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

36.         Certified copy of this order be placed in Consumer Complaint No.249 of 2015.

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

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

Pronounced

April  20, 2016.

 

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad