Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/59/2016

Brig Ajay Raina (Retd) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unitech Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Nehra Adv.

24 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	59 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	15.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	24.05.2016

 

1. Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.)
2. Mrs.Rajesh Rana.

H.No.2146, Sector 35, Chandigarh.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

 

M/s Unitech Limited, Marketing Office, SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman, Managing Director and authorized Official.

              ....Opposite Party

                 

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

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

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:-     Sh.Atul Nehra, Advocate for the  complainants.

Ms.Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            Complainant no.1 is an ex-serviceman. He alongwith his wife, being allured by advertisements appearing in media and website of the opposite party, purchased a plot measuring area 358.80 square yards, from one Priya Gill, in its project. Transfer of the said plot was endorsed by the opposite party, in the name of the complainants, on 29.08.2008 and, thereafter, Buyer’s Agreement was signed on the said date. Vide the said Agreement, unit No.68, Block C, Gardens, situated in Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali, was allotted in favour of the complainants. An amount of Rs.11,02,352/- had already been paid by the previous allottee. Further amount was paid by the complainants, in installments, upto 03.05.2010, totaling to Rs.50,16,650/-.

            It is necessary to mention here that total price of the plot was fixed at Rs.53,37,150/-. Balance amount was to be paid at the time of taking possession. As per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the opposite party was to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. from 29.08.2008. Thus, possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before 28.08.2011. Vide letter dated 15.09.2009, the payment plan was changed from time linked to construction/progress linked. However, no change was offered, in so far as, time for delivery of possession is concerned. As per the demands made by the opposite party, the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.50,16,650/- by 03.05.2010 i.e. more than about 90% of the sale consideration, however, possession was neither offered nor delivered, as promised by the opposite party, by the stipulated date.

            In the meantime, on 08.09.2010, it was intimated by the opposite party to the complainants that on account of deduction in the rate of External Development Charges (EDC), total price of the unit, has been reduced and, as such, it stood fully paid. The complainants continued to wait with a hope that they will get possession of the unit and will construct a house thereon, and live thereon. However, it has not happened. From perusal of letter dated 01.08.2015, sent by the opposite party to the complainants, it came out that the work of sewerage connection, power connection from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) Board, roads and horticulture etc. was not completed at the site of the project. The complainants issued legal notice dated 24.09.2015 to the opposite party, to refund their amount alongwith interest and compensation. However, when nothing was done, this complaint was filed.

2.       Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein numerous preliminary objections were taken stating that this Commission lacks territorial Jurisdiction to hear and decide this dispute. It is asserted that the unit, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the  complainants would not fall within definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of 1986 Act. It is further asserted that the complaint is barred by limitation.
3.       On merits, it is admitted that the  complainants had purchased a residential unit, from the opposite party, in the manner, referred to above. Fact qua basic price of the unit, as mentioned in the complaint is also admitted. It was also frankly admitted in para no.21 of the “reply on merits”, that part amount towards the price of said unit was received by the opposite party at Chandigarh, through cheques. It is stated that consumer complaint was not maintainable, and only a Civil Court, could adjudicate the dispute, in question. It is admitted that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the opposite party was to hand over possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), subject to force majeure conditions. It is clarified that the opposite party, could not 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 some 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 party, due to which, rest of the development work and providing of the basic amenities was delayed. It is stated that possession of the unit has already been offered to the complainants on 22.07.2015.  It is specifically stated at the bar, when arguments were being heard, by making reference to an undertaking written by one Official of the Company that possession is ready and it can be delivered to the complainants, without any delay. However, to the contrary, in para no.17 of the reply filed, it has been admitted that development work at the site is in full swing. It is averred that it is well within the knowledge of the  complainants that for any delays, stipulated penalty has been provided in the Agreement, which safeguarded their rights. It is stated that, in case, still the  complainants sought refund of the amount deposited, in that event, forfeiture Clause would be attracted, as envisaged in the Agreement. The remaining averments are denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
4.       In the rejoinder filed by the complainants, they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the opposite party.
5.       The parties led evidence in support of their cases, by way of filing their respective affidavits, alongwith which, number of documents were attached. 
6.       On completion of the proceedings, arguments of the parties, were heard, in detail.
7.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint could 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, that out of the deposited amount, an amount of Rs.6,62,600/-, Rs.8,59,725/- and Rs.4,48,500/-, in respect of the unit, in question, was received by Regional Office/Marketing Office of the opposite party, at Chandigarh i.e. “Unitech Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh”, vide different cheques  (at pages 40, 41 and 42 of the file). Perusal of the Buyer’s Agreement also revealed that besides Registered Office of the opposite party at New Delhi, the same had  also been executed between the complainants and  Marketing Office, Unitech Limited at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17C, Chandigarh. Not only this, it has frankly been admitted by the opposite party, in its written reply that its Regional Office at Chandigarh, had accepted the cheques, from the complainants, towards part price of the said unit. Since, as per 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.  The objection taken by the opposite party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 
8.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainants, was within limitation or not. It may be stated here, that according to the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered, in respect of the plot, in question, within a maximum period of 36 months, from the date of signing the same, in favour of the complainants i.e. by August 2011. Admittedly, offer of possession of the plot, in question, was not offered to the complainants, by the stipulated date, but on the other hand, was ultimately offered on 22.07.2015, which is being challenged by the complainants, by way of filing the present complaint. Thus, if a period of two years is counted from 22.07.2015, the present complaint could very well be said to be filed within limitation.

            Otherwise also, it is settled principle of law that in the cases of non-delivery and/or delayed delivery of possession of the units, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the purchasers/consumers.  It was so said by the National Commission, in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal  Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, and  Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.  

9.        To defeat claim of the  complainants, another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party, 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, or not.

            It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainants are the property dealers, and are 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 party, 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. 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. 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 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 the opposite party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

10.       Another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party 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 party, for purchasing the unit, in the manner, referred to above. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the  Agreement, the opposite party was liable to deliver physical possession of the developed unit, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(ii) 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 consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection of the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the opposite party, was to hand over possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. by 28.08.2011. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered to the  complainants, by the stipulated date. Even, in the written version, the opposite party, frankly admitted, that possession of the unit, in question, could not be offered to the  complainants, by the stipulated date, as they failed to complete the 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). Admission made by the opposite party, itself makes it clear that it had not obtained necessary approvals/sanctions from the PSPCL, as a result whereof, it was not provided with electricity, for the project in question. Secondly, when the opposite party, had already received more than 90% of the sale consideration of the unit, in question, from the allottee(s), then it does not lie in its mouth, that it 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 party was, in the first instance, required to develop the project, by arranging funds out of its 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 party, only in those circumstances, the plea with regard to facing extreme financial hardship would have been considered to be correct, by this Commission. Admittedly,  the entire sale consideration of the unit, in question, had already been paid, by the time of filing the complaint, but possession of the same, was not delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date.  

            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 of unit(s). 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 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 party 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 Agreement. A similar question fell for determination before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in  Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  decided on 14 Aug 2015. 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 party 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.”.

12.       The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. By making a misleading statement, that  the possession of unit, in question, would be delivered within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement,  and by not abiding by the commitments made, the opposite party was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
13.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, letter dated 22.07.2015 Annexure C-6, sent by the opposite party, to the complainants, could be termed as offer of possession of the unit, in question. It may be stated here that perusal of contents of letter aforesaid clearly goes to reveal that it was mere an intimation/update on the status of development of the project, where the unit, in question, was located, as it was clearly mentioned therein that the development activities of essential services in the said project are in full swing and significant progress has been made in the project. Reading of the contents of letter dated 22.07.2015, makes it crystal clear that it cannot be termed as offer made to the complainants, in respect of the unit, in question.
14.       Even otherwise, in case, all these development activities, had been undertaken, and completed at the site, by 22.07.2015, then it was for the Opposite Party, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but it failed to do so.

            Not only this, it is also very strange that on the one hand, the opposite party is claiming that it had offered possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants, as far as back on 22.07.2015, however, on the other hand, a letter dated 03.02.2016 (after about more than seven months of 01.07.2015) has been placed on record alongwith the reply, as Annexure OP-3, wherein  a request to the GMADA/Competent Authority, for issuance of partial completion certificate in respect of the project, has been made by it. It means that offer made by the opposite party to the complainants, vide letter dated 22.07.2015, in respect of the unit, in question, was mere a paper offer, and the same is not sustainable, in the eyes of law, as completion certificate by that date, had not even been applied to the GAMDA. This act also amounted to unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite party.

15.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants were bound to take possession of the unit, in question, on issuance of mere paper possession i.e. in the absence of completion certificate and basic amenities and that too after a long delay. The answer to this question, is in the negative. The opposite party is not in possession of the completion certificate from the authorities concerned, even till date. If that be so, offer of possession, stated to have been made to the complainants in the year 2015, was no offer at all, as stated in earlier part of this order also. Under similar circumstances, it was so said by the National Commission also, in a case titled as Inderjit Singh Bakshi Vs. S.M.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd., First Appeal No. 729 of 2013, decided on 30^th Nov 2015. In that case, it was clearly held that an  allottee is not obliged to take possession of a unit, unless it is complete in every respect, including the completion certificate.
16.       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 Complainant 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.

17.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, because in the instant case, the  complainants had sought refund of the amount deposited, the forfeiture Clause will attract, as envisaged in the Agreement. The Agreement was executed between the parties, on 29.08.2008. As stated above, according  to Article 4.a(i) of the Agreement,  the opposite party, was to hand over physical possession of the unit, in favour of the  complainants, within a period of 36 months, and not later than that, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), complete in all respects. Admittedly, possession of the unit, was not even offered to the  complainants, by 28.08.2011 i.e. by the stipulated date, what to speak of delivery thereof, as still the development work was going on. Had the development work been complete and had the amenities, complete in all respects, been provided, in respect of the area, where the unit of the  complainants was situated, by the stipulated date and had the opposite party, offered actual legal physical possession to the complainants, but, on the other hand, they (complainants) had sought refund of the amount deposited, the matter would have been different. In that event, it would have been held that since the  complainants rescinded the contract, as such, forfeiture clause contained in the Agreement would be applicable. However, in the present case, actual physical possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered to the  complainants, by the stipulated date, or even till date, and on the other hand, offer made by the opposite party,  vide letter dated 22.07.2015, has been held to be mere paper offer, as such, it was justifiable for the  complainants to seek refund of the amount deposited without application of forfeiture Clause. Similar view was taken by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Emaar   MGF   Land   Limited   and   another   Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). In the above case, possession   was   not   delivered   in   time. Complaint was filed for refund of amount paid. The State Commission partly allowed it. The builder was allowed to forfeit 10% of the deposited amount, on the ground that the  complainants themselves rescinded the contract by asking refund of the amount, as possession of the unit had already been offered to them. The remaining amount was allowed to be returned with interest. The complainants in that case was also awarded litigation cost etc. The builder namely Emaar MGF Land Limited went in appeal, which was dismissed, wherein it was specifically observed by the National Commission, that when the promoter/builder has violated material condition in not handing over possession, in time, it is not obligatory for the purchaser to accept possession after that date. The principle of law laid in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. On account of that, the  complainants are entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited by them, without application of forfeiture clause. The submission of Counsel for the opposite party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

            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 party failed to prove, by placing on record, any cogent and convincing material, that it encountered any force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, possession of the unit, in question, was delayed. On the other hand, stand taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has been negated by this Commission, while giving detailed findings. The opposite party, 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 party, is also under an obligation to compensate the  complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

18.       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.50,16,650/-, i.e. more than about 90% of the sale consideration, was paid by the  complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite party was 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.50,16,650/-. alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite party, in case of delayed payment i.e. 18% compounded quarterly, as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement), till realization.
19.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.     
20.       For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite party, is directed as under:-

 

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.50,16,650/-, 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.

 

21.       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).
22.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
23.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

24.05.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg.