Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/364/2017

Lt. Col. Inderjit Kaur and another - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

saurabh Gautam

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	364 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	27.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.11.2017

 

1. Lt. Col. Inderjit Kaur W/o Sh. Devender Singh;
2. Mr. Devender Singh Arora S/o Late Sh. Santokh Singh Arora;

Both residents of House No.244, Moti Bazar, Jammu Tawi, Jammu, J & K – 180 001.

 ……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company), having office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160009 (India) through its Authorised Signatory/Director.
2. Mr. Anupam Nagalia, Director of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074.
3. Mr. Amrick Singh Gambhir, Director of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074.

….. Opposite Parties.

Argued by: Sh. Saurabh Gautam, Advocate for the complainants.

                 Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint case No.	:	372 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.11.2017

 

1. Rajesh Madan s/o Sh. K. C. Madan,
2. Sanjeev Madan s/o Sh. K. C. Madan,

Both R/o H.No.97, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

……Complainants.

V e r s u s

M/s. Puma Realtors Private Ltd., SCO No.6-7-8, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

….. Opposite Party.

 

Argued by: Sh. Maninder Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

                 Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

Complaint case No.	:	396 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	11.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.11.2017

 

1. Shivang Sharma S/o Sh. Akshaya Sharma R/o H.No.1178, Pushpak Complex, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh – 160047.
2. Suman Sharma W/o Sh. Akshaya Sharma R/o H.No.1178, Pushpak Complex, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh – 160047.  

 ……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Sh. Anupam Nagalia, Director of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited R/o PV-66, The Palm Springs, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon – 122002.
3. Sh. Amrick Singh Gambhir, Director of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, R/o A-124, 2^nd Floor, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018.

.. Opposite Parties.

Argued by: Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainants.

                 Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite parties.

 

Complaint case No.	:	421 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	16.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.11.2017

 

1. Deepak Pandey son of Sh. S. K. Pandey, House No.186-A, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Ms. Sangeeta Pandey wife of Deepak Pandey son of Sh. S. K. Pandey, House No.186-A, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.

 ……Complainants.

V e r s u s

1. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-7-8, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009 through its Managing Director or Authorized Representative.
2. House Development Finance Corporation Limited, SCO-14, Canal Colony, Green Park Avenue, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

….. Opposite Parties.

Argued by: Sh. Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for the complainants.

                 Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                 Ms. Anjali Moudgil, Advocate Proxy for Mrs. Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

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

 

 

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

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            After hearing arguments on 07.11.2017, it was agreed between the Counsel for the parties that the facts involved in the above four complaints, by and large, are the same and therefore, the aforesaid complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order. To dictate order, facts are being taken from complaint bearing No.364 of 2017, titled as ‘Lt. Col. Inderit Kaur & Anr. Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited & Ors.’.

2.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainants who were looking for a flat for their own residential purpose and their family, approached the representatives of the Opposite Parties in July 2011, for booking an apartment/flat in their project, namely, IREO RISE. The complainants vide application dated 06.07.2011, applied for allotment of a flat by paying a sum of Rs.4,39,000/- as booking amount. They were allotted an apartment No.JCC-02-002 having tentative super area of 1609 sq. ft. at Ireo Rise, Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide letter dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure C-6), the basic sale price whereof was fixed as Rs.52,66,620/- @Rs.3,273.22 per sq. ft. of super area. The Opposite Parties also charged an amount of Rs.1,60,900/- @Rs.100/- per sq. ft. of super area towards external development charges.  It was stated that after submission of application form on 05.07.2011, the Opposite Parties executed the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement on 20.12.2011 (Annexure C-9). It was further stated possession was to be given in 30 months of issuance of allotment letter but the agreement on standard basis was executed after 5 months and the complainants had no option but to bow down to the illegitimate and dictating demands of the Opposite Parties time and again.

3.         It was further stated that the complainants under the undue influence were compelled to sign the agreement as the Opposite Parties assured to give possession within 30 months of entering into agreement or within a further grace period of 180 days. It was further stated that as per clause 13.3 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were committed to deliver possession of the unit within a period of 30 months from the date of agreement or approval of the building plans. It was further stated that the stipulated period of 30 months expired on 19.06.2014 and even the grace period of 180 days expired on 19.01.2015, but, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period i.e. by 19.06.2014. It was further stated that the complainants visited the site and found that there was no development in the area, in which, the unit allotted to them was situated and even the construction was far behind the prescribed time schedule. It was further stated that the  complainants out of good faith kept on making payments from time to time and in all, paid an amount of Rs.45,37,872.70 to the Opposite Parties in the hope of getting physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period. It was further stated as per Clause 13.4, the Company was liable to pay delay compensation @Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. per month in the event of delay in handing over possession. It was further stated that after having made nearly 90% of payment, the Opposite Parties failed to offer/deliver possession of the apartment, in question till date. It was further stated that being aggrieved, the complainants visited the office of the Opposite Parties in November 2015 and sought refund of the amount paid by them alongwith interest.

4.         It was further stated that the Opposite Parties malafidely sent the account statement vide email dated 24.01.2017, showing a huge amount due towards delayed payment interest (Annexure C-18 colly). It was further stated that when the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount, the complainants sent a letter/notice dated 27.01.2017 for refund of the amount alongwith interest @18% (Annexure C-19). It was further stated that the acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

5.         Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount of Rs.45,37,872.70 alongwith interest thereon @15% at the compounded rate per annum with quarterly rests from the respective date of deposits till its actual realization, without deduction of TDS; pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards other damages and compensation on account of mental agony/torture and physical harassment caused to the complainants on account of deficiency in service, malpractices and unfair trade practice; Rs.50,000/- towards litigation/counsel fee.

6.         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.34 in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 20.12.2011; that since the present complaint related to enforcement of an agreement to sell/purchase of a residential apartment i.e. an immovable property and hence, was triable by a Civil Court and, thus, not covered under the Act; that the complainants are not consumers, as they neither   bought the goods nor availed/hired any services of the Opposite Parties, as the parties did not enter into any contract for hiring the services; that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction on account of existence of Clause 36 in the Agreement; that the complainants would not fall within the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as they had purchased the unit, in question, for the purpose of investment and that the relief claimed is beyond Section 14(1)(d) of the  1986 Act and could be awarded if loss is suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the Opposite Parties. 

7.         On merits, it was stated that the consideration price of the unit, in question, at the time of execution of the Agreement, was Rs.56,11,405/-, which was inclusive of basic sale price @Rs.3123.23 per sq. ft. EDC and IFMS charge and the then applicable service tax. It was further stated that on account of revision in service tax, the consideration price of the unit, in question, as on date, is Rs.53,84,982.81. It was further stated that in response to the booking application dated 05.07.2011, Opposite Party No.1 immediately issued provisional allotment letter dated 06.07.2011 and sent copies of buyers agreement to the complainants on 25.07.2011 for returning the same to Opposite Party No.1 after execution by the complainants but the complainants failed to execute the said agreement, for which, reminder no.1 dated 11.10.2011 followed by reminder no.2 dated 28.11.2011 were sent by Opposite Party No.1 requesting the complainants to execute and return back the said copies of agreement. It was further stated that it was only on 20.12.2011 that the complainants executed the said agreement.

8.         It was further stated that the complainants did not adhere to the payment plan and willfully delayed the payments as per the latest statement of accounts. It was further stated that the complainants never availed the subvention scheme as they did not come forward with the housing loan sanction from any Bank. It was further stated that the said payments were made by the complainants towards discharge of their contractual obligation to pay the consideration price of the apartment, in question, in advance. It was further stated that in terms of Clause 13.4 of the Agreement, the complainants duly agreed to receive liquidated damages from the end of the grace period i.e. 30 months plus 6 months, till possession was actually offered.  It was further stated that the complainants vide Clause No.13.3 of the Agreement agreed that the starting period for 30 months shall be date of the said Agreement or approval of the building plans and/or fulfillment of precondition imposed thereunder, which ever was later. It was further stated that building plans were approved on 18.01.2012 and that being so, the starting period for 30 months would not be the date of the said Agreement but would be 18.01.2012. It was further stated that since the development of the site and construction of the apartment, in question, was already completed and ready for possession, the Opposite Parties applied Partial Completion Certificate on 22.12.2016 with respect to two towers, in which the apartment of the complainants is situated and is expected to be issued shortly.  It was further stated that upon coming to know this fact, the complainants immediately sent letter dated 27.01.2017 seeking refund without complying with the terms and condition No.13.5 of the Agreement.  It was further stated that as agreed between the parties, in case of failure of the Opposite Parties to deliver possession within aforesaid period of 36 months, the complainants were entitled to the liquidated damages @Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. per month till possession of the apartment was actually offered. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties are very likely to issue the offer of possession of the apartment, in question, alongwith the liquidated damages to the complainants in the near future on receipt of said partial completion certificate.

9.         It was further stated that due to willful and persistent defaults committed by the complainants in making the payment of due installment(s) with delay and non-payment of one due installment as was payable on 22.12.2014 till the date of filing the written statement, despite granting numerous opportunities vide reminders and notices (Annexures OP-7 to OP-9), as on date, an amount of Rs.2,20,077.74 is outstanding against the complainants towards delayed payment interest as per latest statement of accounts (Annexure OP-6), which was calculated @15% per annum simple and not on compound basis. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 possessed all the necessary permissions/approvals from the competent authorities including the exemption from the provisions of the PAPRA act by the Govt. of Punjab vide notification dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure OP-12). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

10.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their joint affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

11.       The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, their Authorised Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

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

13.       It is evident, on record, that the complainants were allotted Apartment No.002, Category General on Second Floor, Juniper Court – C Tower, 3B2TS Type, in the project of Opposite Parties i.e. “Ireo Rise”, situated in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali, having tentative super area of 1604 sq. ft. (149.47 sq. mtrs.) together with 1 no. parking space, forming indivisible part thereof and Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties on 20.12.2011 (Annexure   C-9/OP-2). As per Annexure-IV, Payment Plan (at Page 150 of the written statement), the basic sale price of the unit was Rs.52,66,620/-. The total sale consideration of the unit, in question, as per aforesaid payment plan, including External Development Charges (EDC) Rs.1,60,900/-, IFMS charges Rs.48,270/- and service tax (Rs.1,35,615/-), is Rs.56,11,405.00. The payment against the aforesaid unit was to be regulated as per aforesaid Payment Plan, Annexure IV. The complainants made payment in the sum of Rs.45,37,872.70 as is apparent from latest accounts statement (Annexure OP-6). In terms of Clause 13.3 of the Agreement since building plans were approved on 18.01.2012, 30 months period for handing over possession, expired on 17.07.2014. Till 17.07.2014, there was no significant default on the part of the complainants in making the payment of the due installments. Admittedly, neither occupation certificate has been received nor possession of the unit, in question, offered to the complainants by the Opposite Parties till the date of filing of the instant complaint or till date.

14.       The Opposite Parties, while filing their written statement, contended that Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are the Directors of Opposite Party No.1 and have been wrongly impleaded as they have no liability towards the complainants as they neither executed the Buyer’s Agreement nor they promised to sell the apartment, in question, nor they received any money from the complainants as all the terms and conditions were settled inter-se the complainants and Opposite Party No.1 only. It may be stated here that a Company acts through its Director(s). The fact of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, being Directors of the Company, has neither been disputed nor has it been pleaded that they are not the active Directors of the Company. In view of this, for failure of Opposite Party No.1, they (Opposite Parties No.2 & 3) are also equally responsible. The objection raised, thus, being not sustainable, stands rejected.

15.        The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause No.34 in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It may be stated here that this Commission in case titled ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, noted that litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. The complaint in the State Commission can be filed by making payment between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- only. Whereas, as per principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of arbitrator’s fee. As per mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is proposed to be decided within three months from the date of service of the other party. On the other hand, it is admissible to an Arbitrator to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it was observed that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, it would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act. Paras 26, 33 and 34 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“26.      To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of  Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

33.        The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. As stated above, in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire  life earnings to purchase the plot, in the said project, launched by the opposite party. However, his hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of the sale consideration, he failed to get possession of the  plot, in question, in a developed project. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

34.        Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in  Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha  (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

            Same is the ratio of recent judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 13.07.2017 in case titled ‘Aftab Singh & Ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr.’ III (2017) CPJ 270 (NC).

            In  view of the above, the plea taken by the Opposite Parties, that 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 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

16.         Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties was that since the complainants did not buy goods and did not hire any services, and were seeking enforcement of the Agreement in respect of immovable property, therefore, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 13.3 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to hand over possession of the apartment, in question, within a period of thirty months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) or approval of building plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions, whichever is later (commitment period).  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”

 

 

 

              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, Section 3 of the Act provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have remedy to file a suit 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 the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

17.         The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, it is evident from Clause 33 of the Agreement, that the parties had agreed that “Hence this Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed at Chandigarh even if the Proposed Allottee has prior thereto executed this Agreement at any place(s) other than Chandigarh”, meaning thereby that the Agreement in question, was deemed to be signed/executed at Chandigarh. Not only this, receipts (Annexures C-1 to C-5, C-7, C-8, C-10, C-11, C-13, C-14 & C-16) and letter dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure C-6) were issued by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainants, from its Chandigarh Office i.e. SCO 6-7-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Since, as per Clause 33 of the Agreement and the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

18.         No doubt, in the written version, an objection was also taken by the Opposite Parties, that as per Clause 36 of the Agreement, the Courts at Mohali and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.

19.         In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainants had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to them, to file the complaint. The submission of Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

20.       A specific objection, as regards the complainants being not consumers as they booked the apartment not for their personal use but for investment/commercial purposes, has been taken. It is case of the Opposite Parties, in their written statement, that in addition to the unit, in question, the complainants also own and possess House No.224, Moti Bazar, Jammu Tawi, Jammu, where they are living since long alongwith their family. It may be stated here that in the opening para of the complaint, the complainants have specifically stated that since they were looking for a decent accommodation for their own residential purpose and their family, they booked the unit in question with the Opposite Parties. At the same time, there is nothing, on record, to show that the complainants are     property dealer(s), and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof.  Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the complainants being investors, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. It may be stated here that in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs.  Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

“In the case of the purchase of the house which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. First Appeal No.1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. The objection raised, being devoid of any substance, stands rejected.

21.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether there is delay in delivering possession of apartment to the complainants and whether the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited by them alongwith interest. It may be stated here that as per Clause 13.3 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure C-9), subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of apartment, within a period of 30 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) or approval of building plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions imposed thereunder whichever was later. Admittedly, the building plans were approved on 18.01.2012 after 20.12.2011 when agreement was executed; 30 months period for delivering possession expired on 17.07.2014. On account of force majeure circumstances, referred to above, the Opposite Parties were entitled to advantage of 180 days grace period after expiry of 30 months for unforeseen delays in obtaining the occupation certificate etc. No cogent evidence or justification for seeking advantage of 180 days grace period has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties even did not apply for occupation certificate during the aforesaid period of 180 days. The fact remains that even after expiry of grace period of 180 days, the Opposite Parties failed to offer/deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants. Clause 13.4 of the Agreement envisages that in case of delay beyond the period as referred to above, in handing over possession, the Opposite Parties shall be under obligation to pay penalty amount for the delayed period. Computing 30 months from the date of approval of building plans, on 18.01.2012, at the maximum, possession was to be delivered to the complainants by 17.07.2014. Even if, it is accepted that the Opposite Parties are entitled to further 12 months of extended delay period, as per Clause 13.5 of the Agreement, date of handing over possession come to an end on 17.07.2015. It is an admitted fact that possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered, by the date of filing the instant complaint, or even till date, for want of completion of unit and basic amenities at the site despite the fact that the complainants had already paid an amount of Rs.45,37,872.70 as against the sale consideration of Rs.53,73,675.16. Further as per account statement (Annexure OP-6), there has been no significant default on the part of the complainants in making payment of due installments uptil the due date for delivery of possession i.e. 17.07.2014.

22.       The Opposite Parties failed to abide by their commitment to offer possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date as per Agreement. The complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely.  No doubt, the Opposite Parties have admitted, in their written statement, that it is in the process of obtaining the occupation certificate and possession, complete in all respects, of the apartment, in question, shall be handed over in the near future, yet, it failed to place, on record, any cogent and convincing evidence, with regard to date, by which, construction of the unit is going to be complete. The Opposite Parties were duty bound to hand over possession within 30 months i.e. by 17.07.2014 or after grace period of 180 days. Counsel for the Opposite Parties could not give any firm date, by which the Opposite Parties would be handing over possession. Clearly there is inordinate delay in delivering possession. By making a misleading   statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within the maximum period of 30 months from the date of execution of the Agreement/approval of building plans and within further extended period of 180 days and thereafter during the extended delay period of 12 months, and by not abiding by the commitment made, they (Opposite Parties) were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Non-delivery of possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date, is a material violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, on the part of the Opposite Parties. This Commission in case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainant while holding as under:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the  complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the  complainants to accept the same. It was so held by the National Commission in Emaar MGF   Land   Limited   and   another   Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). Recently also, under similar circumstances, in the case of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the  complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. It is therefore held that the  complainants could not be held guilty, of filing the present complaint, seeking refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest and compensation, as possession of the unit was not offered to them by the stipulated date.

It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), 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. Recently in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015 decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder while holding as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainant that considering the default on the part of the opposite party in performing its contractual obligation, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and, therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him alongwith reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

              In view of the above, it is held that since there was a material violation on the part of the Opposite Parties, in not handing over possession of the unit by the stipulated date or even till date, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest and compensation by way of filing the instant complaint.

23.           It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainants. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.45,37,872.70 was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. The Opposite Parties were charging heavy rate of interest @15% per annum, with quarterly rests, as per Clause 7.3 of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of installments by the complainants.  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 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple) (less than the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Parties).

24.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to them. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar”, AIR 2008 SC 1828, pleaded that compensation could be granted if there was allegation of loss. The judgment relied upon is of no help to the Opposite Parties as in that case, the complainant had stated in his complaint that he had filed a complaint in the public interest. It may           be stated that Hon’ble Apex Court in Balram           Prasad Vs. Kunal Shah, (2014) 1 SCC 384, dealt with the plea urged on behalf of the complainant (in         the said case) that the National Commission            was wrong in rejecting different claims on the            ground that same had not been made in the   pleadings. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while observing that the claim for enhancement of compensation by the claimant was justified, relied upon its judgment in Nigamma and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, and held that the Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of the fact whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. In the complaint in hand, the complainants have specifically prayed for compensation of Rs.5 Lacs towards other damages & on account of mental agony/torture and physical harassment caused to them on account of deficiency in service, malpractices and unfair trade practices. Clearly possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainants till date on account of which, they (complainants) suffered mental agony and physical harassment. The compensation in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs claimed by the complainants is certainly on the higher side. Perusal of Account Statement (Annexure C-18 colly., at Page 118 of the file) shows that there is delayed interest amount of Rs.2,20,738.89 against the complainants for not making the payment of installment(s) in time. It is also on record that against demand note dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure OP-7) whereby the complainants were asked to remit the due amount of Rs.11,39,720.95, the complainants made part payment of only Rs.6,00,000/- on 05.01.2015. Vide reminder letter dated 16.01.2015 (Annexure OP-9), complainant No.1 was asked to remit the due amount of Rs.5,39,720.95. Delay in payment of installment(s) partly contributes to delay in completion of unit. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to same amount of compensation as this Commission grants in such cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in providing service, in the sum of Rs.1 lac (Rupees One Lac only), if granted, would be adequate to serve the ends of justice.

25.         In Complaint bearing No.396 of 2017, it is on record that Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 31.10.2011  (Annexure C-2) and the building plans were approved on 18.01.2012. The complainants deposited a total sum of Rs.47,01,832.62, which is around 90% of the total payment, with the Opposite Parties. Therefore, computing 30 months from the date of approval of building plans i.e. 18.01.2012, the possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered by the Opposite Parties by 17.07.2014. However, the possession of the unit, in question, was offered on 30.06.2017 vide notice of possession letter dispatched on 24.07.2017 vide proof of dispatch at Page 162 of the written statement, during the pendency of the instant complaint. In view of ratio of judgment in Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited’s case (supra), the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this stage. For the reasons assigned in Consumer Complaint bearing No.364 of 2017, the complainants, in this case, are also entitled to the same relief i.e. refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple) from the respective dates of deposits. The complainants are also held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, which they suffered due to deficiency of the Opposite Parties.  

26.         In Complaint bearing No.372 of 2017, since the date of approval of building plans viz. 18.01.2012, was subsequent to the date of execution of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, which was executed on 19.08.2011, computing 30 months from the date of approval of building plans i.e. 18.01.2012, the possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered by the Opposite Party by 17.07.2014. Admittedly, in this case, possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered till date by the Opposite Party. During arguments, it was stated by Counsel for the Opposite Party that even today, the unit, in question, is not complete. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in Consumer Complaint bearing No.364 of 2017, the complainants, in this case, are entitled to the same relief i.e. refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple).

27.       It may be stated here that the Opposite Party, in Para 5 of its written statement, has stated that out of alleged payment of Rs.38,65,742/-, a sum of Rs.2,25,049/- was never paid by the complainants as the Opposite Party had borne the said amount on account of Subvention Scheme opted by the complainants. Copies of demand note dated 27.01.2012, FRILL Calculation by the HDFC, cheque dated 07.03.2012 and receipts dated 10.03.2012 for Rs.8,84,036/- & Rs.2,25,049/- and two receipts dated 19.03.2012 for Rs.13,835/- have been annexed by the Opposite Party as Annexure OP-14 to OP-20. Perusal of account statement (Annexure OP-10) clearly depicts that the complainants paid Rs.38,65,742/-, which included a sum of Rs.2,25,049/-. It is relevant to note that in terms of Clause 3 of Tripartite Agreement (Annexure OP-13), under Scheme of an arrangement between the Borrower and the Builder, the Builder (Opposite Party) assumed the liability of payments under the loan agreement as payable by the Borrower during the period of 24 months from the date of first disbursement by HDFC. Further as per FRIL Calculation (Annexure OP-15), disbursed amount to the complainants was Rs.11,09,085/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.2,25,049/- being interest for 24 months was received by HDFC at the time of disbursement of loan amount, under subvention scheme, at discounted interest rate of 9.30% against subvention interest rate of 10.75%. The liability of complainants to repay the loan amount would be Rs.11,09,085/- and not Rs.11,09,085.00 minus  (-) Rs.2,25,049.00 = Rs.8,84,036.00. However, since the Opposite Party has incurred liability of interest on Rs.11,09,085/- for 24 months (07.03.2012 to 31.03.2014), the complainants are not entitled to interest on Rs.11,09,085/- for aforesaid period of 24 months. Qua rest of the amount, the complainants are entitled to interest from the respective dates of deposit. The complainants are also held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment, which they suffered due to deficiency of the Opposite Party.

28.       In Complaint bearing No.421 of 2017, the complainants are second allottees and the rights/obligations of the unit, in question, were assigned/transferred in their favour by Opposite Party No.1 on 26.09.2012 (Annexure OP-3) at Page 148 of the written statement). Since Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, in this case, was executed on 07.05.2012 (Annexure OP-2), i.e. subsequent to the date of approval of building plans viz. 18.01.2012, therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, by 06.11.2014. Admittedly, in this case, possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered till date by Opposite Party No.1. It was stated by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, during arguments, that even today, the unit, in question, is not complete. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in Consumer Complaint bearing No.364 of 2017, the complainants, in this case, are entitled to the same relief i.e. refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple) till realization. Since, the complainants are second allottees, therefore, in view of ratio of judgment in case titled ‘Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors.’, Complaint Case No.147 of 2016 decided by this Commission on 22.08.2016, the complainants are held entitled to interest @13% per annum, w.e.f. 26.09.2012 onwards in respect of amounts deposited up-to 26.09.2012 and interest @13% per annum on the amounts deposited after 26.09.2012 from the respective dates of deposits.

            It is, however, made clear that in case, Opposite Party No.1 has incurred liability of interest on the disbursed loan amount for 24 months, as per Clause 3 of the Tripartite Agreement, then, the complainants shall not be entitled to interest on the disbursed loan amount for the said period of 24 months.

29.       The complainants are also held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

30.       As regards claim of the complainants for Rs.3,84,000/- paid on account of rent, Opposite Party No.1 has specifically raised an objection that in the complaint, the rent paid has been mentioned as Rs.12,000/- p.m. but in the legal notice, it was mentioned as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and, as such, the claim raised on this account is false and frivolous.  It may be stated here that nothing has been placed on record by way of Rent Agreement/Deed to prove that the complainants have been paying rent @Rs.12,000/- or Rs.15,000/- p.m. By awarding interest @13% p.a. on the deposited amount and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, the complainants have been adequately compensated. In view of this and also, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the complainants are not entitled to the relief claimed by them on account of the alleged rent paid. 

31.       The complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 (Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited) is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

32.       It may be stated here that in connected complaints bearing Nos.372, 396 and 421, all of 2017, the objection qua the complainant(s) being not consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act as the properties were purchased for commercial purpose and not for personal use, stands decided in favour of the complainants, in view of observations made in Para 20 of this judgment.

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

34.          For the reasons, recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.364, 372, 396 and 421, all of 2017, are partly accepted with costs.

Complaint No.364 of 2017

35.         The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)    To refund the amount of  Rs.45,37,872.70 to   the   complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple), 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only), as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii)  In case, the payment of amount, 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 @15% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization and amount(s) mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @13% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Complaint No.396 of 2017

36.         The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)    To refund the amount of  Rs.47,01,832.62 to   the   complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a. (simple), 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.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Seventy Five Thousand only), as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii)  In case, the payment of amount, 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 @15% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization and amount(s) mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @13% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Complaint No.372 of 2017

37.         The Opposite Party is held liable and directed as under:-

(i)   To refund the amount of Rs.38,65,742/- to   the   complainants, alongwith interest @13% (simple), from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the complainants shall not be entitled to interest on the loan amount of Rs.11,09,085/- for the period between 07.03.2012 to 31.03.2014 i.e. during the period, the Opposite Party had paid pre-EMI interest to the financial institution concerned, under Subvention Scheme.

(ii) To pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand only), as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii) In case, the payment of amount, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest @15% (simple), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization and amount(s) mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @13% (simple) from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Complaint No: 421 of 2017.

 

38.       Opposite Party No.1 is held liable and directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.42,70,505/- alongwith simple interest @13% per annum, to the complainants, with effect from 26.09.2012 for the amount(s) paid uptil 26.09.2012 by the previous allottee and from the respective dates of deposits, in respect of payments made w.e.f. 26.09.2012 onwards, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

 

         [In case, Opposite Party No.1 has incurred liability of interest on the disbursed loan amount for 24 months, as per Clause 3 of the Tripartite Agreement, then, the complainants shall not be entitled to interest on the disbursed loan amount for the said period of 24 months.]

 

2. To pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand only), as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation (as prayed for), to the complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii)    In case, the payment of amount, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then Opposite Party No.1, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest @15% (simple), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization and amount(s) mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @13% (simple) from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

39.       Complaint bearing No.421 of 2017 stands dismissed against Opposite Party No.2 (Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited), with no order as to costs.

40.       However, it is made clear that in case, the complainants have availed loan facility from any financial institution(s), such an institution shall have the first charge on the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due against the complainants.

41.         Certified Copy of this order be placed in the file of connected complaints bearing Nos.372, 396 and 421 all of 2017.

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

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

Pronounced.

21.11.2017.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Ad