Date of Decision :  11.08.2014

Complaint Case No.414/2012

Sh. Ashok Sardana

B-39, West Nizamuddin

New Delhi-110013         ……Complainant

VERSUS

1. The Navasansad Vihar CGHS Ltd.

Plot No. 4, Sector-22      

Dwarka, New Delhi-110077

1. The Registrar,

Coop. Societies, Delhi

Office of the Registrar, Coop. Societies,

Delhi

Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001       …..Opposite Parties

CORAM

S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)

S.C.Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.        Since common facts and issues are involved, all the three complaints are being decided by single judgment/order.  Complaint case No. 12/414 will be treated as leading case.  Judgment/order of this case shall ‘mutatis mutandis’ (with necessary changes) apply in rest of the two complaints, and copies of the judgments of this case shall be placed on the record of both the complaint files.
2.        Sh. Ashok Sardana (Complainant in Complaint Case No. 12/414) is the Son of Late Dr. R.N.Sardana R/o B-39, West Nisamuddin, New Delhi-110013 he is a bonafide member of the society (having M.No.-A4).  Sh. Vijay Sardana (Complainant in Complaint Case No. 415/12) is also a bonafide member of the society having M. No. A-418) and is the Son of Sh. Ashok Sardana and Ms. Suprana Sardana Batra daughter of Sh. Ashok Sardana (Complainant in Complaint Case No. 12/363) is a bonafide member of the society (having M. No. A-417).
3.        The respondent is a group housing society having its registered office at Dwarka and is registered under the provisions of the DCS Act 1972 (repealed by the Act of 2003) and the DCS Rules, 1973 (repealed by the DCS Rules 2007).  It was created in the year 1983.
4.        The complaint has been filed for directing the society to handover the possession of allotted flat No. A-1-322 and to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 15 Lac for not handing over the possession so far alongwith compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and agony alongwith cost of litigation.
5.        It has been alleged that land was allotted to the society by DDA at Plot No. 4, Sector 22 Dwarka, New Delhi.  Thereafter the society obtained the permission from DDA for construction of flats in two phases with 142 flats in phase 1, that 142 flats in phase 1 consisted of category A……58 flats, category-A-Pent Houses-4 flats, category B-78 flats, category-B-Pent House-6 flats.  After seeking permission for construction of various categories of flats and pent houses, the society asked its members to submit their options for pent house flats vide its circular dt. 25.05.1995 (Copy of the circular dt. 25.05.1995-Ann.-A).  The complainant (M No. A-4) opted in category A-pent house flat, phase-1 vide letter dt. 02.06.1995 (copy of the letter dt. 02.06.1995-ann. B). Initial payment of Rs. 2 Lac was made to the society vide receipt numbers 2961 dt. 12.12.1998 (copy ann.-C).  The estimated cost of construction of flats was @ 722.78 per sq. ft. by the above estimate cost schedule, the price of A-1 pent house were fixed at Rs. 33.45 Lakhs (copy ann.G).  However, for the reasons best known to the society it issued another circular letter dt. 01.02.2001 reducing the cost of A-category pent house from Rs. 33.45 Lakhs to Rs. 29.70 Lakhs (copy ann.1).  The OP again for the second time, in its meeting dt. 08.07.2002, just before draw of lots, further reduced the price of A-category pent house from Rs. 29.70 Lakhs to Rs. 26.93 Lakhs without any basis, just to oblige a few selected members including president of the society (copy ann.J).
6.        The draw of lots for A-category of flats was held on 11.08.2002, in the presence of the representatives of DDA as well as Registrar, Co-operative society, Delhi.  Complainant was allotted flat No. A-1-322.   Result sheet for draw of lots containing names of allottees is (ann. A-1).  Complainant Sh. Vijay Saradana was allotted flat No. A-1-261 and Ms. Suparna Sardana Batra was allotted flat No. A-1-314.  The secretary of the society Sh. Sehgal though claimed that reduction of the price of A-category pent house had been approved by the AGM, infact alleged cost enhancement and reduction has never been approved by the AGM.  Till date assistant registrar of co-operative society Delhi in his affidavit filed in CWP No. 3096 of 2003 admitted in Para-6 that “just before the draw, the petitioner had complained to the society that the price of A-1 (4 numbers) pent house was reduced from 33.45 Lakhs to 26.93 Lakhs each in order to oblige the president/influential members of the society.  Since there was no time left to reconsider the issue, the draw of four numbers  A-1 pent houses were held but the DDA was requested not to confirm the draw of four numbers A-1 pent house “till the dispute is sorted out” (copy of affidavit ann.-L). In Para-7 of affidavit, the society registrar further submitted that “this action of handing over the possession of flats/pent houses is against the directions issued by the Registrar Co-operative Society, Delhi.  Accordingly, Assistant Registrar through letter dt. 18.09.2002 informed Deputy Director (GH), DDA “not to confirm the draw of flats in respect of four numbers A-1 pent house till the decision of the case.”  (copy of the letter ann. M).  The secretary of the society in circular dt. 03.03.2003 stated that “actual possession of the flat shall be given after receipt of confirmation from DDA,” though actually he acted on the contraty to his statement as possession of four A-1 pent houses was handed over in hurry on 18.04.2003 to the allottees including the president and one office bearer of the society.  The allotment in question has not been confirmed by the DDA till date (copy of circular dt. 03.03.2003 is Ann. O).  The complainant has made full payment of his opted A-1 pent house to the society.  As per averment in Para 25 of the complaint, total amount paid is Rs. 30,05,172/- against Rs. 26,93,000/- the cost of pent house.  Thus against payment of Rs. 3,12,172/- has been made.  (copy of calculation Ann.R).  Besides this payment, ground rent and house tax of A-1 pent house has also been made through tax.
7.        The society repeatedly asked the complainant to take possession of his flat through its letter dt. 07.02.2003-08.07.2003-07.10.2004-22.04.2005 and 14.10.2005, but when complainant requested for possession of his flat vide letters dt. 27.12.2010-21.01.2011-29.04.2011-21.11.2011 and 18.01.2014, sent through speed post the society did not respond (copy of letter ann. as ann. S Colly).  Under the circumstances, the complainant was compelled to make complaint before the registrar co-operative society Delhi requesting to direct the society to handover the possession of flat No. A-1-322 (flat Nos. A-1-261 & A-1-314).  However, the registrar co-operative society did not take any action, nor society discharged its legal duty of handing over possession of the flats to the complainants concerned.  Finally by letter dt. 18.01.2012 the complainant intimated to the Registrar Co-operative Society Delhi, with copy to Assistant Registrar (CND), that Hon’ble Finance Commissioner, by his order dt. 23.12.2010 has upheld complainant’s membership No. 4 as valid holding that “revision petition is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner continues to be a regular and bonafide member”.  The complainant requested the registrar co-operative society to direct the OP society to handover the possession of allotted/reserved flat to the complainant.  (copy of the complainant’s letter dt. 18.01.2012 annexed as ann. S colly).  Regretfully RCS office again did not take any action whatsoever in the matter.
8.        The society enrolled the complainant as its member with promise of giving him the flat and the complainant had already made payment of the entire cost of his booked A-1 pent house flat.  But the society arbitrarily changed his opted category of A-1 pent house to A-1 flat and even got him allotted flat No. 322 in A-1 category plot number A-1-322 Sh. Ashok Sardana).  However, even more than ten years after allotment of the flats, the same is lying vacant as it’s reserved for the complainant and is deteriorating due to passage of time.  It is definitely gross deficiency on the part of the OP society.   The complainant is suffering both mentally as well as financially as he is running from pillar to post with no remedy insight.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed with direction to the OP society to hand over possession and for payment of adequate compensation and cost of litigation.
9.        In its reply, OP-1 admitted that OP society is registered and governed by the provision of DCS Act 1972/03, DCS Rules 1973/07 framed under the said Acts/Rules.  It was however, denied that the complainant was a bonafide member of the society.  The membership of the complainant is still disputed and no claim for possession of flat in such circumstances is sustainable.  It was further denied that any such alleged option was invited by the society through letter dt. 19.05.1995. This letter was forged and fabricated.  Certain documents were filed by the complainant showing that he has opted for category A-1 pent house but the alleged option stood nullified by letters dt. 09.08.2001, 16.08.2001 and 17.12.2001 and lastly letter dt. 20.07.2002 written by the complainant to the society in response to options invited for pent houses by the society vide letter dt. 03.08.2000. In arbitration proceedings the Ld. Arbitrator held that circular dt. 25.05.1995 was forged and fabricated.  No cause of action was available to the complainant and he was not entitled to the relief claimed and the complaint is liable to be summarily rejected.  Besides raising several preliminary issues, it was also denied that the managing committee operating w.e.f. 01.04.2000 was in any manner illegal; allegation was false and frivolous.  As regards the reduction of price of A-1 pent house from 29.07 to 26.93 Lakhs is totally irrelevant as the complainant had not opted for the said category or deposited requisite amount for the same as alleged.  The allegations is false and mischievous.  The counter of affidavit filed by the secretary is a matter of record.  It was denied that the reduction in price was not approved by the general body but inference drawn to the letter dt. 18.09.2010, 28.10.2002 and 03.03.2003 is erroneous and misleading.  In any case the society was not restrained by any authority to handover the possession of any flat.  The DDA had not taken any adverse view of handing over the possession of the disputed flats to any of the allottees of category of the pent house till date and draw of lot is deemed to have been confirmed.  Moreover, the Ld. Arbitrator has examined the documents and categorically held that the complainant has no claim for the pent houses and the allottees of the pent house were fully eligible for the allotment of A-1 category pent house.  It is pertinent to note that no stay to handing over the possession of the flats was operative from any competent court. The complainant has been just harassing the management of the society by filing frivolous cases which were eventually dismissed and the appeal filed by him on the same cause of action is still pending with no interim relief.  It was also denied that complainant made full payment of category A-1 pent house.  The matter has already been examined by the society in arbitration proceedings and the claim of the complainant has been rejected.  In respect to para 28-29 of the complaint it was mentioned that the complainant has no right to claim possession of the flat No. A-1-314 (and other flats) allotted to him possession of which was willfully not taken and even otherwise membership of the complainant being disputed no possession of the flat of any category can be claimed.  Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the possession of A-1 category cannot be claimed till the appeal for higher category filed by the complainant is pending disposal.  No flat can be handed over to the complainant till the appeal and membership issue are finally decided.  The complaint is frivolous and baseless without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed in lemine with heavy costs.
10.  At the very outset of reply OP-1 raised certain preliminary objections against the maintainability of the complaint.  It was stated that no complaint is maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is a general act and cannot over ride the provisions of the DCS Act 2003 and the Rules made there under which are inforce. The procedure under Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature whereas the dispute between a member and the society are governed by the provisions of section 70/71 read with section 83 of the DCS Act 2003. 
11. It was not disputed that draw of lot for flats was held on 11.08.2002 and the complainant was allotted category A-1 flat No. 322.  The society admittedly sent letters dt. 27.02.2003, 08.07.2003 and finally 07.10.2004 to the complainant to take possession of the flat.  The complainants willfully avoided to take possession of the flat.  Subsequently possession could not be offered as membership of the complainant was cancelled by the society in the year 2004 and the complainant also filed an arbitration case in 2004 challenging category of flat allotted to him.
12. With reference to complaint no. 12/363 the father of the complainant Sh. Ashok Sardana (complainant in complaint case no. 12/414) while holding the post of secretary/CEO of the OP society, enrolled the complainant as a member though she was minor aged about 8 years it was in violation of Rule 25 of Delhi Co-operative Society Rules 1973. He also mentioned false fact that she was aged about 18 years.  After attaining the age of majority Ms. Suparna Sardana Batra resigned and obtained membership of OP society which was merely “benami” membership obtained by the father.  Ms. Suparna Sardana Batra was then a student and had no independent source of income.
13. This matter was referred to registrar for essation of membership but no action was taken and the OP society had to file Writ Petition (C 2807/11) and the same was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court through its judgment dt. 29.06.2011. The matter was remanded to the registrar to take a decision in accordance with the law.  Thus this Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter which stands remanded to the registrar for decision.  This matter is presently pending adjudication before appellate authority.
14. With reference to the said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court the OP society moved an application before the registrar for approval of expulsion and confirmation of ineligibility of the complainant to continue as a member.  This application was disposed of by additional registrar through award dt. 15.11.2011. The additional registrar failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the law on the subject and rejected the proposal without application of mind.  The matter of disqualification was not considered by additional registrar which was referred to him by Hon’ble High Court.  The OP society has therefore filed revision petition which is pending disposal before the finance commissioner, which is an appellate authority.  The complainant has concealed this material fact from the Forum/Commission.
15. It was further mentioned that complainant challenged the category of the flat allotted to him in arbitration case no. 5804/DR/ARB/04-05 which was filed under section 60/61 of the DCS Act 1972. It was claimed that complainant was entitled to category A-1 pent house instead of category A-1 flats.  Thus the possession of the flat was not taken willfully. The arbitration case was dismissed by the arbitrator through its award dt. 24.03.2009. The complainant has challenged the legality of the award by filing appeal No. 99/09 before the Delhi Co-operative Society Tribunal which is pending disposal.  Therefore the complainant has no right to claim possession of the other flat of lesser category unless he withdrew his claim for the flat of higher category i.e. the category A-1 pent house.
16. Another preliminary objection raised by the OP-1 was that as admitted by the complainant the flat was allotted to him on 11.08.2002 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.11.2012 much after expiry of the period of limitation of two years laid down in the Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint is therefore hopelessly time barred and deserves to be dismissed on this count also.
17. At the initial stage of proceedings, OP-2 the registrar of co-operative society Delhi participate in the proceedings.  Reply was filed by OP-2 by way of affidavit, but later on OP-2 left the proceedings and the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP-2.
18. The complainant filed rejoinder and refuting the averments made in reply filed by OP-1 and reiterated his version as stated in the body of the complainant.
19. The parties led evidence through affidavit and filed documents in support of their cases.  They also filed written submissions.
20. We have heard Sh. Anil Amrit Advocate for complainant and Sh. J.N.Gupta Advocate for OP-1 at length and perused the record.  We have also gone through the written submissions filed by the parties and the case law referred.
21. In its reply OP-1 the Nav Sansad Vihar CGS Ltd. raised certain preliminary objections against the maintainability of the complaint.  It was maintained that OP society is a group housing society and is registered under the provision of DCS Act 1972.  (repealed of 2003 and the DCS Rules 1973). (repealed Rules 2007).  No complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is maintainable as it is a general act and cannot override the provisions of the DCS Act 2003 and the rules.  Moreover, the procedure under the Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature, whereas disputes between the member and the society are governed by the provisions of section 70/71 read with section 83 of the DCS Act 2003 and procedure laid down under the rules framed there under.  This contention of the OP society is not tenable in view of the provision of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which provides that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being inforce.  This means the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provision of any other law for the time being inforce.  The provisions of this Act, thus provide an additional remedy to the consumers besides those that may be available under other existing laws.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Secretary, Thiru Murgan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society V/s Ms. Lalita 2004 CTJ 1 that “as per section 3 of the Act, in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” Hon’ble Court further held, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate that these forums created under the Act are at liberty to proceed with the matters in accordance with the provisions of the Act rather than relegating the parties to an arbitration proceedings pursuant to contract enter into between the parties.
23. The second preliminary objection raised by the OP was regarding the limitation section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides a limitation period of two years for filing a consumer complaint.  In the present case the flats were allotted to the complainants on 11.08.2002 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.11.2012 after expiry of more than ten years period.  The complaint is therefore hopelessly time barred.  This contention of the OP is again not  tenable since the term ‘cause of action’ has not been defined in the Act.  No straight jacket formula can be applied in cases as no definute date for start of the cause of action can be given.  This depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  In the present case both the parties have charted a course of multiple litigation and there appears no end to it.  Under the circumstances cause of action continues.  It is noteworthy that the flats were allotted to the complainants on 11.08.2002 but despite numerous correspondence and oral requests for possession of the flats in question nothing has been done.  Therefore cause of action is continuing.  The Hon’ble National Commission has clearly held in Talagana co-operative G/H Ltd. V/s Vandana Sharma-IV (2009) CPJ 1691 (NC) that “the issue of limitation in such cases needs to be considered.   It is well settle law that the cause of action is subsisting and is continuous in nature in such cases.”  The third objection raised by the OP-1 was regarding pecuniary jurisdiction.  It was maintained that the costs of flats allotted to the complainant was Rs. 17,43,187/- which is less than Rs. 20 Lac.  This Commission/Forum has therefore no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  In this regard it has to be kept in mind that the costs of subject matter of the dispute is above 20 Lac and each of the complainant has already deposited more than 30 Lac of Rupees.  The cost of A-1 pent house is Rs. 26.93 Lakhs which already stands paid, therefore this Commission/Forum has rightly assumed jurisdiction.
24. Apart from these preliminary objections certain other technical objections were also raised.  The society was found in the year 1983, was allotted land by DDA and 142 flats were to be constructed of different categories. Sh. Ashok Sardana handled the post of Secretary/CEO of the society till 2002.  In his capacity as secretary of the society Sh. Ashok Sardana enrolled the complainant Ms. Suparna Sardana Batra as a member though she  was a minor aged eight years, in violation of the Rules 25 of the Co-operative society Rules 1973.  Thereafter, after attaining majority complainant resigned and obtained membership of OP society which was benami membership through her father.  At that time complainant was a student and had no source of income of her own.  The benami membership is illegal and the legal position is very clear on this point.  Therefore, the matter was referred to the registrar for cessation of membership and approval of disqualification but no action was taken and the OP society had to file W.P.(C) 2807-2011.  This writ petition was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court on 29.04.2011 and the case was sent back calling upon R-1/RCS to take decision in accordance with law……..within a period of two months.  This Commission/Forum has therefore no jurisdiction in the matter which was remanded to the registrar and is now subjudice before appellate authority i.e. Ld. Financial Commissioner.  The complainant has concealed this material fact from this Commission.
25. Another stand taken by the complainant was regarding option of flats. The complainant challenged the category of flat allotted to him in an arbitration case filed under section 60/61 of the DCS Act 1972.  The complainant claimed that he was entitled to category A-1 pent house instead of category A-1 Flat.  Thus the possession of the flat was not taken willfully.  However, the claim petition for higher category was dismissed by the Ld. Arbitrator through award dt. 24.03.2009.
26. The complainant has challenged the legality of the said award in appeal No. 99/09 before Delhi Co-operative Tribunal which is pending disposal.  It was emphasized that the complainant had no right to claim possession of the flat of lesser category unless he first withdraw his/her claim in the flat of higher category i.e. category A-1 pent house
27. Finally it was argued on behalf of the OP society that complainant is pursuing an appeal before an appellant authority and at the same time has also filed an complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. Filing of this complaint with holding material facts is malafide illegal and misused of process of the law.  Such a complaint may be dismissed with heavy cost.
28. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that they booked A-1 pent house, with the OP society, despite of full payment, society got it allotted to someone else and has handed over possession illegally to such allottees.  On the other hand the complainants were allotted flat numbers ……..and yet are not given possession of the allotted flats for one reason or the other with malafide intention.  Thus the society has been harassing the complainant for the last 11-12 years by filing multiple litigations in various courts/forums.
29. It is noteworthy that OPs false allegations of benami membership has already been rejected by additional registrar through order dt. 15.11.2011 as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court by its order dt. 31.05.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 3537/12.  It is further noteworthy that the complainants were compelled to file consumer complaint because inspite of repeated request the society has not given them possession of allotted flats.  Flats were allotted on 11.08.2002 in a  draw of lots held in present of representatives of DDA as well as RCS which has been confirmed by Rohtash Kumar Additional Registrar in his reply filed on 02.08.2013 by way of affidavit. This is also noteworthy that the society in contradiction to its own stand has handed over the possession of A-1 pent houses though the draw of flats dt. 11.08.2002 was conditional.  The RCS as well as DDA were duly informed.  How the society can given possession of A-1 pent houses which were conditional and at the same time refused to give possession of the flat duly allotted to the complainant which are lying vacant since the year 2002 and deteriorating with the passage of time and that is when there is no stay/bar on its possession by any court or forum.
30. It was argued that this an unequal fight between an ordinary citizen and a mighty resourceful society which has adopted a course of protracted litigation on technical grounds after receiving full payment from the consumer.  Through these complaints the complainants are seeking possession of the flats duly allotted in their respective names since a very long time and they are legally entitled for possession of the same.  Complainant Ms. Suparna Sardana Batra wrote to President/Secretary of the society to handover the possession of the flat reserved by the society in her name subject to final decision of the appeal in the pent house case (appeal No. 99/09).  This is noteworthy that the draw of lot was held on 11.08.2002 and Ms. Suparna Sardana Batra was allotted category A-1 Flat No. 314.  Other two complainants were also allotted separate category A-1 flats in their respective names.

It is a fact that in case of conflict between the general law and special law, special law prevails but Consumer Protection Act 1986 is an exception as it provides an additional remedy.  In view of the provisions of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the above referred principle becomes inapplicable.

Housing societies cannot be allowed to exploit their members through unnecessary and unending litigation.  Flat No. A-1-314 was allotted to the complainant on 11.08.2002 but its physical possession has not been given on one technical ground or the other by the society despite requests, correspondence and full payment.  Possession of the allotted flats have not been delivered so far.  We are therefore of the firm view that besides being deficient in providing required services, OP society has also adopted an unfair trade practice.  Now days it has become common practice that builders and housing societies on one hand adopt every available means at their command to allure the people to deposit maximum money and on the other hand refuse to provide promised services to the poor investors.

1. In view of the above discussion the complaints succeed and are liable to be decreed.
2. At this stage, it would not be out of place to say that the society has taken feeble defense based on purely technical grounds, undermining the settled legal proposition that consumer courts are not expected to go into the technicalities of civil or criminal jurisprudence.  Very few provisions of civil procedures code and evidence Act are applicable in proceedings before the consumer courts.  Disputes are to be decided on the yardstick of reasonableness and probability.  The principles of natural justice do apply in full force.
3.  Draw of lot was held on 11.08.2002 and complainant Sh. Ashok Sardana was allotted category A-1 Flat No. 322, complainant Sh. Vijay Sardana was allotted category A-1 flat No.261, complainant Ms. Suprana Sardana Batra was allotted category A-1 flat No.314; thus almost twelve years have passed and the complainants were made to run from pillar to post causing tremendous mental pain and agony therefore an appropriate amount of damages is to be given towards compensation.  In our considered view a compensation of Rs. 2.5 Lacs will meet the ends of justice.  Further the OP will also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
4. We therefore, pass the following order:-

Complaint Case No. 414/12

1. The OP-1 Nav Sansad Society CGHS Ltd. is directed to handover possession of flat-A-1-322 to the complainant subject to final decision in the case.
2. OP-1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lac as compensation for mental pain agony and harassment.
3. The OP-1 society will also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of litigation.

Complaint Case No. 415/12

1. OP-1 Nav Sansad Society CGHS Ltd. is directed to handover possession of flat-A-1-261 to the complainant subject to final decision in the case.
2. OP-1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lac as compensation for mental pain agony and harassment.
3. The OP-1 society will also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of litigation.

Complaint Case No. 363/12

1. The OP-1 Nav Sansad Society CGHS Ltd. is directed to handover possession of flat-A-1-314 to the complainant subject to final decision in the case.
2. OP-1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lac as compensation for mental pain agony and harassment.
3. The OP-1 society will also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of litigation.

1. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
2. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and thereafter file be consigned to record room.