Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/202/2016

Dr. Neeraj Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Khunger, Adv.

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	202 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	11.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	02.08.2016

 

1. Dr.Neeraj Singla son of Sh.Kewal Ram Singla.
2. Mrs.Monika Bansal wife of Dr.Neeraj Singla.

Complainants Nos.1 and 2 both are residents of House No.302, Mari Gold Towers, Soul Space, Mayfare Apartments, Sector 70, Mohali.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Director.
2. M/s Unitech Limited, Office 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director/Director.

              ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

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

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                       

Argued by:-     Sh.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the    complainants.

Mrs.Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                The complainants are husband and wife. They purchased a flat bearing no.0053, in Tower-D, measuring 1796 square feet, from the opposite parties, in a project, known as Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali. Price of the said unit was fixed at Rs.63,67,370/-, which included Preferential Location Charges (PLC), External Development Charges, Infrastructure Development Charges (EDC/IDC) etc. Buyer’s Agreement, Annexure C-1 was signed between the parties on 06.07.2011. It is stated by the complainants that by 09.08.2011, they had paid an amount of Rs.62,74,798/- to the opposite parties towards price of the said unit. As per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the opposite parties were liable to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. on or before 05.07.2013. The complainants had opted ‘down payment plan’ and virtually almost the entire amount was paid within two months, from the date when Buyer’s Agreement was executed. For making payment, the complainants have obtained loan from HDFC Limited/Bank.

                Despite having received huge amount, when possession of the unit was not delivered to the complainants, to know about the progress of construction, they visited the project site and were astonished to see that construction had come to stand still. To show above fact, photographs were placed on record as Annexure C-2. When despite requests, no assurance was given by the opposite parties, to deliver possession in a time bound manner, legal notice was served upon the opposite parties, on 07.03.2016 calling upon them to refund the amount paid with interest @24% compounded quarterly. They also claimed compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment suffered by them. When nothing was done, present complaint was filed by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act).

2.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite parties, disputing territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, to entertain the complaint, it was stated that  Buyer’s Agreement was executed at New Delhi and the Branch Office at Chandigarh, at no time did  any act, which may give any cause of action to the complainants to invoke territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Status of the complainants as consumers, was also disputed by stating that they had purchased the said unit for future gain, as such, they being investors, would not fall within definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission was also disputed. It was further stated that time was not the essence of contract, as the period mentioned in the Agreement for delivery of possession was only tentative. It was also averred that in terms of Clause 8.b. of the Agreement, it is open to the opposite parties to ask for further extension of time to handover possession of the unit, on account of force majeure circumstances, under which construction could not be completed. It is stated that the complaint is premature and be dismissed accordingly.
3.         On merits, it is admitted that the complainants had purchased a residential unit, in question, from the opposite parties. In para no.5 of the complaint, it has been stated by the complainants that they had paid an amount of Rs.62,74,798/- towards price of the said unit. The  said fact has not been controverted by the opposite parties in reply to para no.5. It is stated that the dispute being a contractual one, consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court, could adjudicate the same. It was also not disputed that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the  opposite parties were to hand over possession of a fully constructed unit, to the  complainants within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), subject to force majeure conditions. It is clarified that the opposite parties could not complete the construction/ development work and hand over possession of  the unit to the  complainants, by the stipulated date, as there was global meltdown/recession of the economy worldwide, resulting into cash crunch throughout and also due to objection raised by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), a number of times, as such, electricity could not be made available at the site, by the opposite parties, due to which, rest of the construction/ development work and providing of the basic amenities was delayed. It is stated that recently vide letter dated 16.05.2016, it was intimated by the PSPCL to get the proposed new route, to be vetted by the GMADA. Vide letter dated 18.05.2016, No Objection Certificate in that regard, was provided to the PSPCL. It is stated that construction work of the unit, is being carried out, in full swing and the opposite parties are making sincere efforts to hand over possession of the constructed unit, to the complainants within three to four months. It is averred that for any delay, stipulated penalty has been provided in the Agreement, which safeguarded rights of the complainants, in case they are eligible for that. It was also stated that the  opposite parties vide letter dated 03.02.2016, has applied to the Competent Authority, to issue partial completion certificate, in respect of the project, in question. It was averred that if still the complainants are interested in seeking refund of the amount deposited, their case will be governed strictly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. In other words, it is said that forfeiture Article shall be attracted and the complainants will lose considerable amount, in case, refund of the deposited amount is ordered by this Commission. The remaining averments are denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
4.         In the rejoinder filed, complainant no.1 reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the  opposite parties.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their case. 
6.         On completion of the proceedings, arguments of the parties were heard in detail on 29.07.2016. On that date, an additional affidavit was placed on record by complainant no.1 stating that Branch Office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh was responsible to develop the project. It was stated that at many times, part amount towards price of the unit was also received by the Branch Office of the opposite parties, at Chandigarh.
7.         It is apparent on record  that the opposite parties have failed to discharge their promise made vide Agreement dated parties on 06.07.2011. Possession of the unit was to be delivered within 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement. More than 95% of amount towards price of the unit stood paid and as apparent from photographs attached with the complaint, construction was not complete, when the complaint was failed. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite parties has filed to commit about the time frame with which, possession of the unit can even now be delivered .
8.         The contention of Counsel for the opposite parties that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint needs to be rejected. In the complaint, it is stated that the project wherein the flat in dispute is situated was marketed by Branch Office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh. The above fact is proved, when we look into the documents placed on record, by the opposite parties available at pages between 86 to 98. The documents placed on record are the photocopies of correspondence between the Branch Office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh and the Authorities concerned, for release of electricity connection and to complete other formalities, which are necessary to develop the project.

                By filing an additional affidavit of complainant no.1, payment receipts have been placed on record, vide which, substantial amount, towards sale consideration of the unit, in question, was received by the Officials of Branch Office of the opposite parties at SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. On the basis of above facts,  it is held that since a part of cause of action, arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

9.         Another objection raised by Counsel for the  opposite parties, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here, that the complainants have sought refund of an amount of Rs.62,74,798/-, paid by them, towards price of the unit, in question, alongwith interest @24% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization;  compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony & physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.55,000/-, aggregate value whereof [excluding the interest claimed] fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.

                As far as the interest claimed by the complainants, on the deposited amount is concerned, it is not required to be added, at this stage, to the value of the reliefs claimed, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of law laid down by three Member Bench of the National Commission, in a case titled as Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), wherein it was clearly held that since rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of Consumer Foras, and that too at the stage, when the complaint is finally disposed of, as such, the same being imaginary would not be taken into consideration, at the time of filing of the same (complaint), for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. Not only as above, in the case of Denis Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Consumer Case No. 196 of 2016, decided on 08 March 2016, it was clearly held by the National Commission that interest component being imaginary, will not be added in the reliefs sought by the consumers, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The principles of law, laid down, in the cases referred to above, are fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In view of the above, the submission of Counsel for the opposite parties, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

10.         To defeat claim of the  complainants, another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, that the complainants are speculators, as they have purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act.

                It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show, that the complainants are property dealers, and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. On the other hand, the complainants, in paragraph no.3 of the rejoinder filed, clarified that the unit, in was purchased by them, for their residential purpose. 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. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainants, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by Counsel for the  opposite parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

11.         Another objection was raised by Counsel for the  opposite parties that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the  opposite parties, for purchasing the unit, in the manner, referred to above. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the  Agreement, the  opposite parties were liable to deliver physical possession of the constructed unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. on or before 05.07.2013, alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(iii) [at page 28 of the file) of the Agreement. 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 1986 Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can also be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of a consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by Counsel for the  opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.         Admittedly, possession of the unit, was not delivered to the  complainants, by the stipulated date or even till date. Even, in the written version, the  opposite parties, frankly admitted that possession of the unit, in question, could not be offered to the  complainants, by the stipulated date, as they had failed to complete the construction and development work, on account of extreme financial hardship, due to recession in the market/global meltdown, and also on account of non-provision of electricity in the said project, by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). Even partial completion certificate has not been obtained by the opposite parties, till date, what to speak of obtaining final completion certificate, which is mandatory, before delivery of possession of the unit. Admission made by the  opposite parties, itself makes it clear that they have not obtained necessary approvals/sanctions from the PSPCL, as a result whereof, they were not provided with electricity, for the project in question. Still, the opposite parties are working on obtaining permissions, from the PSPCL/GMADA. Secondly, when the  opposite parties, had already received more than 95% of the sale consideration, towards the unit(s), from the allottee(s), then it does not lie in their mouth, that they faced extreme financial hardship, due to recession in the market, as far as the project, in question, is concerned. It is not that the  opposite parties were, in the first instance, required to develop the project, by arranging funds out of their own sources, and, thereafter, the units were to be sold to the allottees, on future payment basis. Had this been the case of the opposite parties, only in those circumstances, the plea with regard to facing extreme financial hardship would have been considered to be correct, by this Commission.

                Even otherwise, the said difficulty/ground i.e. recession in the market/global meltdown would not fall under the definition of force majeure circumstances, for not completing the construction and development work at the site. A change in economic or market circumstances affecting the profitability of a contract or the circumstance, is not regarded as a force majeure condition. Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended, stopping suspending or delaying the construction/development work of the project, in which flat(s)/plot(s) were agreed to be sold to the consumers. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour, at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the  opposite parties or the contractors engaged by them, at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God, which could have delayed the completion of construction/development work in the project, within the time stipulated in the Agreement. A similar question fell for determination before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  2015 (4) CPR 34. The National Commission, in that case, while rejecting the plea of the builder, held as under:-

“Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the  complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the  opposite parties or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression ‘slow down’ would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down’ having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project.”.

13.         The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The  opposite parties, therefore, cannot take shelter under Article 8.b. of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. By making a misleading statement, that  possession of the unit, in question, would be delivered within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement but on the other hand, by not abiding by the commitments made, the opposite parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
14.         Another objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that time was not the essence of contract, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Article 4.a(i) of the Agreement that possession of the unit was proposed to be delivered by the opposite parties, within a period of 24 months, subject to force majeure circumstances. At the same time, force majeure conditions claimed by the opposite parties have been negated by this Commission, while giving detailed findings, as per law. Thus, under these circumstances, as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the opposite parties were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same i.e. 05.07.2013. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract.

                Even otherwise, the opposite parties cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the word proposed or tentative was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. Non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement, is an unfair trade practice, on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. Vs. Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of Counsel for the opposite parties in this regard also stands rejected.

15.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.62,74,798/-, deposited by them. It is an admitted fact that the  opposite parties are unable to deliver  possession of the unit, in question, on account of pending development works; construction  of the unit; want of basic amenities etc.  as admitted by them, and firm date of delivery of possession of the unit, could not be given to them (complainants). Still, the opposite parties are  saying that they are making efforts to complete the construction and deliver possession of the unit to the complainants within three to four months. However, this claim of the opposite parties is without any evidence. To add strength to this claim, they could have placed on record, affidavit/report of an engineer/architect, in that regard, but they failed to do so. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of actual physical possession of the unit. As stated above, the  opposite parties failed to prove, by placing on record, any cogent and convincing material, that it actually encountered any force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, their stand has been negated by this Commission. The  opposite parties, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The complainants are thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by them. In view of above facts of the case, the  opposite parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.
16.         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.62,74,798/-,  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. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the  opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @18%) as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. 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 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the  complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, to the tune of Rs.62,74,798/-, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by the  opposite parties, in case of delayed payment i.e. 18% compounded quarterly, as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement), till realization. 
17.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainants, is premature or not. It may be stated here, that possession of the unit, was required to be delivered, in favour of the complainants by 05.07.2013. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, was not even offered to the complainants by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed, for want of construction and basic amenities. Under these circumstances, the complainants were at liberty to file the complaint after 05.07.2013 i.e. the promised date, when after waiting for sufficient time, they found that the opposite parties are unable to deliver possession of the unit, in question. Had the complainants filed this complaint before 05.07.2013 (promised date), only in those circumstances, it would have been said that the complaint filed is premature. In view of above, an objection taken by Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, is rejected.

18.         As far as the plea taken by the  opposite parties regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same also stands rejected, because it is not the case of the  opposite parties, that they were ready with possession of the fully constructed unit, to be delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date i.e. 05.07.2013, but the complainants wanted to rescind the contract, on account of some financial constraints or for any personal reason, and are seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the  opposite parties, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that since the complainants themselves are rescinding the contract, as such, they are entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the  opposite parties, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.   
19.         It was, however, submitted by the Counsel for the  opposite parties, that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, in case of delay, in delivery of physical possession of the unit, they (opposite parties), were only liable to make payment of penalty, in the sum of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only) per sq.feet, per month of the saleable area, for such period of delay, as per Article 4.c. of the Agreement. She further submitted that the opposite parties are ready to pay this amount, for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the unit. The hard-earned money of the complainants was used by the  opposite parties, for investment, for a long time. They were not refunded the amount, to which they were entitled to. If the opposite parties are allowed to invoke Article 4.c. of the Agreement, in the instant case, that would amount to enriching them, at the cost of the complainants. Under these circumstances, shelter cannot be taken by the opposite parties, under Article 4.c. of the Agreement. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the  opposite parties, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.    
20.         No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.
21.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The  opposite parties are directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.62,74,798/-,  to  the  complainants, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the  complainants.
4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% compounded quarterly, instead of @15%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

22.         However, it is made clear that, if the complainants have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them  (complainants).
23.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
24.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

02.08.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Rg.