1.     

(in all matters)

In FA No. 453 of 2017

For the Respondent                :         Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate with

                                                       Mr. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate

In FA No. 638 of 2017

For the Respondent                :         Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Advocate with

                                                       Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Advocate\

FA/1623/2016

For the Respondent              :         Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate with

                                                          Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocate

FA/1578/2016

For the Respondent              :         Mr. Rajesh Sharda, Advocate with

                                                         Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate

FA/1599/2016

For the Respondent              :         Mr. Savinder Singh, Advocate with

                                                         Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate

FA/1600/2016

For the Respondent              :         Mr. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate

FA/1622/2016

For the Respondent              :         Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate

FA/1625/2016

For the Respondent              :         Mr. Ram Kumar Tripathi, Advocate

                                                          With Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate

The matter relates to first appeals filed by the appellant – builder co. under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commission’s Orders passed in favour of the respondents – complainants. 2.        A fair number of first appeals filed by the appellant – builder co. are pending before various benches of this Commission, including this bench.

3.      Of the ones pending before this bench, two sets, f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 f. a. s and f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 f. a. s (total 1 + 21 + 1 + 26 = 49 f. a. s), were taken up on 01.08.2018. Arguments from learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. and from some of the learned counsels for the respondents – complainants were heard from 3.02 p.m. to 4.37. p.m. i. e. about one and a half hours. Learned counsels for the respondents – complainants took about ten minutes. Rest of the about one hour and twenty minutes was taken by the learned counsels for the appellants – builder co.  

4.      The record was perused.

5.        Vide this bench’s Order dated 01.08.2018 the said 49 f. a. s were dismissed, with reasoned judgment to follow.   

6.      Review applications (I.A. no.14334 of 2018 in f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected f. a. s and I.A. no. 14496 of 2018 in f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and 26 connected matters) were taken up on 08.08.2018. The review applications were listed in chamber. They were taken up in bench. Learned senior counsel and learned counsels for the appellants – builder co. were heard. The review applications were perused.

7.      Vide this bench’s Order dated 08.08.2018 the review applications were dismissed, with reasons to be included in the reasoned judgement apropos the 49 f. a. s dismissed on 01.08.2018.

8.      The 49 f. a. s were dismissed after perusing the record and hearing arguments on the issues at hand. The stage for final hearing on the impugned Orders of the State Commission was not reached.  The appellant – builder co. was found to be intentionally and wilfully impeding and disrupting the normal proceedings of the bench towards final hearing and final adjudication of the f. a. s.  The responsibilities attached with the right to appeal were found to be intentionally and wilfully being violated by the appellant – builder co.  The f. a. s were dismissed in view of the specificities intentionally and wilfully created by the appellant – builder co. in the overall (mis)conduct of its case.

9.      For appreciation of the facts in perspective we feel it appropriate to reproduce some salient relevant record before proceeding to examination and reasoned conclusions on the issues at hand.

10.    First appeal no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 first appeals were filed against the State Commission’s Order dated 26.10.2015. The operative portion of the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015 of the State Commission is as below:

Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to them, at the hands of the Opposite Party, as also escalation in prices, or not.

It is not disputed that the complainants belong to a middle class family. They have raised loan to purchase the unit, in question, from a bank. They had expectations to settle in the unit, after lapse of 24 months, from the date of execution of the Buyer’s Agreement i.e. from 14.01.2011. However, their hopes were not fulfilled when possession of the unit, in question, was not offered to them, by the stipulated date. Compelled under the circumstances, they even agreed to extend the period, to get possession, by 12 months, against letter dated 05.06.2013. As per information supplied by Counsel for the Opposite Party, even today construction of the unit is not complete and firm date to hand over possession is not in sight. The Opposite Party has failed to perform its part of the Buyer’s Agreement. The act in not handing over possession in time, as per the Buyer’s Agreement, and also extended against letter dated 05.06.2013, is a material deficiency, in providing service on the part of the Opposite Party. Thus, the complainants are certainly entitled to be compensated for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by them, as also escalation in prices.

Whether the complainants are entitled to interest on the amount deposited alongwith interest, if so, at what rate.

There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, as per Clause 39 (a) of the Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Party was charging interest @15% P.A., for a delay of first 90 days, and, thereafter, penal interest @18% P.A. In view of above facts, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, to the tune of Rs.39,74,310.62Ps., alongwith interest @15% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization. 

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

For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted,       with costs. The Opposite Party is directed, as under:-

(i)         To refund an amount Rs.39,74,310.62Ps., to the complainants.

(ii)        To pay simple interest @ 15% P.A., to the complainants, from respective dates, on the amount aforesaid (total Rs.39,74,310.62Ps.), when deposited with them. (Above rate of interest is less than the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Party for delayed payment i.e. 18% P.A.)

(iii)       To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices of the real estate.

(iv)       To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants.

(v)        To pay the entire ordered amount, in Clauses (i), (iii) and (iv), including simple interest @ 15% P.A., as mentioned in Clause (ii) above, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay to the complainants, penal simple interest @ 18% P.A.; qua the entire amount assessed, from the date of default till realization, i.e. on Clauses (i), (iii) and (iv).

     (paras 17, 18, 19,20 of the Order)

11.    The daily orders of the case-file read as below:

          Dated: 09.05.2016

            F.A. No. 382 of 2016

                        Due to lack of quorum, adjourned to 13.05.2016.

Dated: 13.05.2016

            F.A. No. 382 of 2016

Issue notice to the Respondents on application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the main Appeal, returnable on 11.08.2016.

The Appellant shall remit to the Respondents a sum of ₹8000/- towards travel and allied expenses within two weeks.

In the meanwhile, subject to the Appellant depositing in this Commission a sum of ₹40,00,000/- along with interest as awarded, within four weeks from today, the direction with regard to payment of compensation shall remain stayed.

Dated: 11.08.2016

            F.A. No. 382 of 2016

The Registry has reported that notice could not be issued to the respondents inadvertently.  However, the respondent no. 2, Mohinder Singh Malik, is present in person on his behalf and on behalf of his wife, respondent no. 1.  The Registry may provide a copy of the paperbook to the respondents.

List the matter for final hearing on 28.11.2016.

The respondent no. 2 stated that he had not received amount of Rs. 8,000/- as ordered on 13.05.2016.

The learned for the appellant stated that she shall ensure that the said amount is duly paid to the respondents immediately, if not already paid.

Dated: 19.12.2016

            F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 879 of 2016; First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016; First Appeal no. 982 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 881/2016 & 1147/2016

On the previous date of hearing, there was presence of the learned counsel in these cases, but vakalatnama had not been filed.  Today, none is present for the respondent, neither vakalatnama have been filed by the learned counsel. 

Issue fresh notice to the respondents in these two cases returnable on 30.03.2017.  These two cases be listed separately from the other cases.

First Appeals No. 382/2016, 447/2016, 648/2016 to 651/2016, 879/2016, 767/2016, 982/2016, 1145/2016, 1146/2016 & 1158/2016

In First Appeal No. 879/2016, the vakalatnama of the learned counsel for the respondent who is present today is already on record.

 In First Appeal No. 1146/2016, the learned counsel, who entered appearance today, stated that his vakalatnama shall be filed during the course of the day.

List all the matters except First Appeal No. 881/2016 and 1147/2016 for final hearing on 22.03.2017.

In First Appeal No. 1147/2016 and 1158/2016, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that they needed one week’s more time to deposit the amount in terms of the previous order.  A further time of one week from today is allowed to deposit the amount in question in First Appeals No. 1147/2016 and 1158/2016.

The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the expenses in terms of order dated 13.05.2016, if any, shall be paid within a period of one week from today.

A copy of the order be given ‘dasti’.

Later on, Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent in First Appeal No. 982/2016 and was apprised of the order.

Dated: 22.03.2017

            F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 879 of 2016; First Appeal No. 767 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

The Authorised Representative of the respondent in First Appeal No. 382/2016 stated that the travel and allied expenses of Rs. 8,000/- in terms of order dated 13.05.2016 had still not been paid to them.  Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate states at the Bar that he shall ensure that sum of Rs. 8,000/- shall be paid to the respondent, if not done already.

In the other allied cases also, the learned counsel stated that the travel expenses had not been paid in terms of the orders already passed.  The learned counsel for the appellant shall ensure that in all these cases, the travel expenses shall be paid within a period of one week from today, if not done already.

A letter has been circulated by the appellant, saying that the arguing counsel Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate was in some medical difficulty and hence, an adjournment was being sought.

List the matters for final hearing on 07.04.2017.

It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the appellant for arguments.

Dated: 07.04.2017

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016; First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016

In some of the cases, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the payment of to and fro and allied expenses had not been paid by the appellants despite giving several opportunities to them.  In particular, the payment is stated not to have been made in First Appeals No. 382/2016, 982/2016, 1146/2016, 1158/2016, 1315/2016, 881/2016 and 1147/2016.

A time of three working days is granted to the appellants to ensure that the amount is physically delivered to the parties in question.  It is made clear that if compliance of this order is not made within the period prescribed, the appeals in question shall stand dismissed automatically.

Since Hon’ble Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member is on leave, list these matters for final hearing on 24.07.2017.

A copy of this order be given ‘dasti’.

Dated: 24.07.2017

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016

The learned counsel in some of the cases stated that their clients were yet to receive payments from the appellant towards to and fro and allied expenses.  The learned senior Advocate for the appellant stated that the said amount shall be disbursed within a week from today and for that purpose, one of their colleague advocates shall establish contact with the person in charge of the office of the appellant at Chandigarh.

In First Appeals No. 650/2016, 651/2016 and 879/2016, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that they had filed I.A. No. 8468/2016, I.A. No. 8470/2016 and 11535/2016 respectively for the release of the amount deposited with the State Commission by the appellant.  Copies of these applications had already been served on the appellant.

The appellants are directed to file response to the said applications within a period of three weeks, if not done already.  In case, they have not received copies of the said applications, they may obtain another copy of the same from the Registry.

The learned senior Advocate for the appellant stated that within a period of three weeks, they wanted to file some additional information with regard to the deposit of money by the complainants in the past.

The appellants are allowed to file the said information within the time requested with advance copy to the opposite counsel.  It is made clear that this shall be the final opportunity to the appellant to file the said information.

Since Hon’ble Member, Dr. S. M. Kantikar is on leave today as well, final hearing in these matters is adjourned and fixed for 03.11.2017.

Copy of this order be given ‘dasti’.

Dated: 03.11.2017

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016; First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to

First Appeal No. 651 of 2016; First Appeal No. 767 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

Mr. K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate who appeared in all the matters stated that similar matters had already been heard by a coordinate bench of this Commission presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke and the final orders had been reserved. He produced a copy of these orders dated  22-10-2017 in this regard. The learned senior advocate stated that final orders of the coordinate bench should be awaited before final arguments are heard in the present matters.

Some of the advocates for the respondents stated that the respondents were yet to be paid the amount for covering to & fro and allied expenses as ordered by this Commission on previous dates. The learned senior advocate for the appellants stated that some of the cheques already issued by them have been received back or had gone to wrong persons. He stated that they had brought blank cheques for making payment to the persons who had not got the expenses so far and they shall ensure that cheques in their names are provided today itself.

Since the decision of the coordinate bench is awaited, list all these matters for final hearing on 05-02-2018.

Dated: 05.02.2018

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016; First Appeal no. 982 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1347 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 1349 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1351 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1352 of 2016

The learned counsel for the appellant, DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., stated that the matter relating to the applicability of the arbitration clause in the agreements signed between the parties had been listed for hearing before Hon’ble Apex Court on 07.02.2018.  The learned counsel referred to an order passed by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Aftab Singh vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr.” and allied matters [CC No. 701/2015 dated 13.07.2017], saying that the said order had been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 15.12.2017 in C.A. No. 023512-023513/2017.

Since the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to handle the consumer complaint, have been raised and the matters are coming up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.02.2018, the hearing in these matters is adjourned.

Let them be listed for final hearing on 23.05.2018.

First Appeals No. 879/2016; 650/2016 & 651/2016

I.A. Nos. 11535/2016, 8468/2016 and 8470/2016 have been filed in First Appeals No. 879/2016, 650/2016 and 651/2016 respectively by the respondents/complainants, seeking release of the amount deposited by the complainant during the pendency of the appeal.

The appellants have filed their reply to I.A. Nos. 8468/2016 and 8470/2016, which are on record. 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 11535/2016, 8468/2016 and 8470/2016.  The learned counsel for the appellant stated that they have no objection if the principal amount involved, which was lying deposited with the State Commission was returned to the complainants with interest accrued, if any, subject to the condition that the restitution of the said amount to the appellants was assured in the event of any adverse order against the complainants. 

Considering the assertions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the amount deposited by the appellants with the State Commission in pursuance of order dated 03.08.2016 of this Commission in these three matters be released to the applicants alongwith interest accrued, if any, subject to furnishing surety for restitution, if the occasion so arises at the time of disposal of the appeals, subject to satisfaction of the State Commission.

Dated: 23.05.2018

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016; First Appeal no. 982 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1347 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 1349 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1351 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1352 of 2016

First Appeal No. 453 of 2017; First Appeal No. 638 of 2017

On the previous date of hearing i.e. 05.02.2018, the issue with regard to the applicability of the arbitration clause in the agreements between the parties, had been raised and it was stated that the order passed by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Aftab Singh vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr.” and allied matters [CC No. 701/2015 dated 13.07.2017], had been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 15.12.2017 in C.A. No. 023512-023513/2017.  The said matter has since been decided by Hon’ble Supreme court and the order passed by this Commission in Aftab Singh (supra) has been upheld, vide order dated 6.3.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2312-23513 of 217 and 23515-23516 of 2017.  It is evident, therefore, that the arbitration clause in the agreement does not come in the way of the disposal of the present appeals.

The learned counsel present for the parties have been heard.  It was stated by the appellants that in identical matters, an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Commission on 11.12.2017, had been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No. 12603 of 2018.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order in the said case on 18.05.2018, which reads as follows:-

 “Delay condoned.

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Issue notice and stay of further proceedings, subject to the petitioners deposit the amount determined by the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today.”

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is likely to hear the above matter on 6.7.2018 and hence, the present cases should be heard after the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was available.  However, the same was objected to by learned counsel present for the OPs. 

Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered stay of proceedings in similar matters, all these matters are adjourned to 1.8.2018 for further hearing. 

The learned counsel for the respondents in some of the cases stated that they had filed applications for the release of the amount deposited by the appellants in their favour, as had been done vide order dated 5.2.2018 in first appeal No. 879 of 2016, 650 of 2016, 651 of 2016.

The learned counsel for the appellants undertook to file replies to the applications, within a period of one week from today, if not already filed.

All these applications shall also be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing i.e. 1.8.2018.

Dated: 01.08.2018

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 982 of 2016 with I.A. No. 4512 OF 2017 (release of amount);

First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016 with I.A. No. 7847 of 2018 (release of amount);

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016 with I.A. No. 4092 of 2018 & I.A. No. 13788 OF 2018 (release of amount & modification of Order);

First Appeal No. 1347 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 1349 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1351 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1352 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 453 of 2017; First Appeal No. 638 of 2017 with I.A. No. 4509 OF 2017 (Stay);

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1576 OF 2016

(From the order dated 13.10.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 291/ 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh)

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                                       …  Appellant

versus

Kevti Devi & Anr.                                                           …  Respondents

connected with:

First Appeal No. 1577 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11849 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1579 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11851 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1580 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11852 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1581 of 2016 with I.A. No. 9099 of 2018 ( Release of amount)

First Appeal No. 1643 of 2017

First Appeal No. 1582 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11853 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1583 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11854 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1584 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11855 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1586 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11856 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1587 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11857 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1589 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11858 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1590 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11859 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1591 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11860 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1592 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11861 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1593 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11862 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1594 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11863 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1595 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11864 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1597 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1598 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11865 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1601 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11868 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1623 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11870 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1578 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1599 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11866 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1600 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11867 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1622 of 2016 with I.A. No.11869 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1625 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11871 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsels for the respondents on First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 alongwith I.A. No. 14102 of 2018 and connected 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 First Appeals, and interalia also in reference to the daily order-sheet dated 23.05.2018 in First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected First Appeals and daily order-sheet dated 02.07.2018 in First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 First Appeals.

First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 and related 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No.1576 of 2016 and related 26 First Appeals are dismissed.

Reasoned judgment will follow.

Till the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment, the execution of the impugned order(s) of the State Commission in these 49 First Appeals will remain stayed.

Dated: 08.08.2018

F.A. No. 382 of 2016

I.A. No. 14334 OF 2018 (Review in Chamber)

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2016

(From the order dated 26.10.2015 in Consumer Complaint No.

174/2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

U.T. Chandigarh)

WITH

I.A. No. 14102 OF 2018

(Directions)

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                                      …  Appellant

versus

Sushila Devi & Anr.                                                             …  Respondents

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016;

 First Appeal No.1347 of 2016 to First Appeal No.1349 of 2016

First Appeal No.1351 of 2016; First Appeal No.1352 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 453 of 2017; First Appeal No.638 of 2017

     I.A. No. 14496 OF 2018 (Review in Chamber)

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1576 OF 2016

(From the order dated 13.10.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 291/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh)

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                                       …  Appellant

versus

Kevti Devi & Anr.                                                           …  Respondents

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 1577 of 2016 ;First Appeal No. 1579 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1580 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1581 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1643 of 2017; First Appeal No. 1582 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1583 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1584 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1586 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1587 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1589 of 2016;First Appeal No. 1590 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1591 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1592 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1593 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1594 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1595 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1597 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1598 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1601 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1623 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1578 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1599 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1600 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1622 of 2016 ; First Appeal No. 1625 of 2016

The review applications are listed for review in chamber.

Perused the review applications.

Heard the review applications in open bench.

The review applications are dismissed.

Reasons for dismissing the review applications will be included in the reasoned judgment in First Appeal No.382 of 2016 and related 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and related 26 First Appeals (which were dismissed on 01.08.2018 with reasoned judgment to follow).

12.    First appeal no.1576 of 2016 and 26 connected first appeals were filed against the State Commission’s Order dated 13.10.2016. The operative portion of the impugned Order dated 13.10.2016 of the State Commission is as below:

For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 291/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

[291/2016, 310/2016, 325/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016]

The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within four months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) due against them.

2. Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s). 

3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 26.04.2014 in respect of Complaint No.291/2016 and from the respective dates as given in Column  No.5 in Table – A, respectively till 31.10.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.

4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the complainant(s)  w.e.f. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.

5. Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

    

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

[323/2016, 332/2016 and 391/2016]

The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within four months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) due against them. 

2. Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).

3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from the respective dates of undertaking(s) till 31.10.2016, in case of complaint Nos.323/2016 & 332/2016 and w.e.f. 16.01.2015 till 31.10.2016 in respect of complaint bearing No.391/2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.

4. To pay compensation by way of interest @ 12% p. a. on the deposited amounts, due to the complainant(s) |
   w. e. f. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.

5. Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

    

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

[301/2016, 324/2016, 326/2016, 370/2016 and 371/2016]

In these complaints, (except Complaint No.324 of 2016), payment(s) against demands raised vide offer of possession letters, have not been deposited by the complainants. The demands, so raised, except the stamp duty & registration charges, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges, shall be deposited by the complainant(s) with the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date  balance payment is made by the complainant(s).

2. Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).

3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 21.12.2013, 23.12.2013, 13.12.2013, 03.02.2015 and 04.05.2015 respectively till 31.10.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.

4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s)w.e.f. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.

5. Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

In all these five complaints, as agreed between the parties, the Advocate Charges shall not be charged by the Opposite Parties. The actual expenditure for registration of Sale Deed(s) besides Stamp duty and Registration charges, shall, however, be borne by the complainants. The demand of contingent vat, shall be payable as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.

Since the demand(s) raised have, by and large, been held to be justified, in cases wherever, there is delay in making payment towards demand raised beyond two months, period taken beyond two months shall be excluded for the purpose of payment of 12% interest compensation on delayed period.

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

                        [289/2016 and 337/2016]

The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

1. To refund the amounts of Rs.35,93,207.07 and Rs.44,10,136.00 respectively, alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the respective complainant(s), from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest @18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of default till actual payment;

2. To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant(s), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

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

Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016.

                                                            (paras no. 40,41,42 of the Order)

13.     The daily orders of the case-file read as below:

Dated: 19.12.2016

            F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

                            With

            I.A. No. 12452 of 2016(Stay)

                                Connected with:

First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

            First Appeals No. 1598 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016

The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in all the matters listed above, they were prepared to hand over the physical possession of the units in question and also got the sale deed executed and registered in accordance with the time schedule fixed by the State Commission in directions (i) and (ii) of the impugned order.  The learned counsel was directed to ensure compliance accordingly.  The learned counsel submitted that the directions given in the impugned order at (iii) to (v) were not in accordance with law and he should not be held liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the respondents.

Issue notice to the respondents in so far as the directions at (iii) to (v) in the impugned order are concerned.  The operation of the impugned order in so far as it relates to directions (iii) to (v) is stayed, subject to deposit of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in each case with the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially for a period of one year.

            List the matter for further hearing on 24.03.2017.

            A copy of this order be given ‘dasti’.

Dated: 10.02.2017

I.A. No. 1654 of 2017 (for extension of time)

                     IN

            F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

Connected with:

I.A. No. 1655 OF 2017 TO 1676 OF 2017

(For extension of time)

IN

First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

                                    First Appeals No. 1598 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016

I.A.No.1694 of 2017 has been filed seeking more time for depositing of the amount as ordered by this Commission on
19-12-2016.

In view of the position explained a further time of two weeks from today is granted for the depositing of the amount in terms of the order dated 19-12-2016. The State Commission is also directed to accept the deposit subject to production of copies of the order taken from the website of this Commission.

List the matter for further hearing on 24-03-2017, the date already fixed.

           A copy of this order be given dasti.

Dated: 24.03.2017

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

                                         With

                        I.A. No. 12452 of 2016 (Stay)

Connected with:

First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1597 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016

In the order dated 19.12.2016, there is no mention for payment of to and fro and allied expenses to the respondents.  The said order is modified to say that the respondents in all the cases shall be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to cover to and fro and allied expenses.  The said payment shall be made within a period of four weeks from today to be sent directly to the respondents by means of demand draft in their favour.

The learned counsel for both the parties may file their written arguments in terms of Regulation 13 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 atleast four weeks before the next date of hearing with advance copies to the opposite counsel.

List the matter for final hearing on 19.07.2017.

Later on, Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent in First Appeal No. 1599/2016 and was apprised of the order.  

Dated: 19.07.2017

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

                                  With

                        I.A. No. 12452 of 2016 (for Stay)

Connected with:

 First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1584 of 2016;

                      First Appeals No. 1586 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

                      First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

           First Appeals No.  1597 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016

                      First Appeals No. 1622 of 2016 to 1624 of 2016 &

           First Appeal No. 1625/2016

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. stated that they shall place on record within a period of three weeks the status of implementation of directions no. (i) and (ii) in the impugned order regarding delivery of possession to the complainants as well as the execution and registration of the sale deed etc.  The learned senior counsel also stated that they shall also place on record final statement of accounts in every case.

As requested, the appellants may place on record the said documents/statements within a period of three weeks from today and ensure that a copy of the same is supplied to the respondents /complainants in advance.

The learned counsel for the complainants in some of the cases stated that they have still not received the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to cover to and fro and allied expenses.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant undertakes that the said amount shall be paid within a period of ten days, where it has not been paid.

List all these matters for final hearing on 07.09.2017.

Dated: 07.09.2017

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

                                  With

                        I.A. No. 11848 of 2017 (for placing addl. documents)

Connected with:

First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1584 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1586 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

                        First Appeals No.  1597 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016

            First Appeals No. 1622 of 2016 to 1623 of 2016 &

          First Appeal No. 1625/2016

Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants in all the matters and sought adjournment, saying that she was to attend a cremation today at 12.00 noon.

In terms of the previous order, the appellants have filed I.A. No. 11848/2017, stating therein that they had made offer of possession to the complainants  alongwith  final statement  of  account, so  as  to enable  them  to hand  over the  physical  possession of  the  property and to execute the conveyance deed. However, the complainants/respondents had deliberately not paid the amount as per the final statement of account and hence, the direction to give possession etc. could not be complied with.  A copy of the said I.A. No. 11848/2017 be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents by the learned counsel for the appellants.

            List all these matters for final hearing on 12.10.2017.

Dated: 12.10.2017

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

                                  With

                        I.A. No. 11848 of 2017 (for placing additional documents)

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 1577 of 2016,  First Appeal

No. 1579 to 1584 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1586 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

                        First Appeals No.  1597 of 2016 to 1598 of 2016,

First Appeal No. 1601 of 2016 &

First Appeals Nos. 1623 of 2016    

The learned counsel for the appellant stated that similar matters had already been heard by a coordinate bench of this Commission and the order was awaited.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all 21 matters mentioned above expressed agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the order of the coordinate bench should be awaited.

In view of the assertion made by the learned counsel for both the parties, these matters are adjourned and listed for final hearing on 13-12-2017.

Dated: 13.12.2017

F.A. No.1576 of 2016

                                  With

                        I.A. No. 11848 of 2017 (for placing additional documents)

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 1577 of 2016,  First Appeal

No. 1579 to 1584 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1586 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

                        First Appeals No.  1597 of 2016 to 1598 of 2016,

First Appeal No. 1601 of 2016 &

First Appeals Nos. 1623 of 2016

An application has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant saying that a coordinate bench of this Commission has already pronounced their order on 11-12-2017. They are in the process of getting hold of a copy of the same and then lead arguments in the present cases.

                        List all these matters for final hearing on 23-04-2018.

Dated: 23.04.2018

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

Connected with:

First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1584 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1586 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

                        First Appeals No.  1597 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016

                        First Appeals No. 1622 of 2016 to 1623 of 2016 &

                        First Appeal No. 1625/2016

The learned counsel, present for the respondents, stated that the respondents/complainants would be satisfied if the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Commission in similar matters in December, 2017 is made applicable in all these cases as well.

The learned counsel for the appellant, however, stated that they had filed a review application against the said order of the coordinate Bench.  The said review application had been decided only 3-4 days back. The appellants had further decided to challenge the said order by way of an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for that purpose, they had already moved an application before the Hon’ble Court, which was likely to be listed on 04.05.2018.  The learned counsel stated that the present matters may be ordered to be listed shortly thereafter.

This was objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents, who stated that the appellants were adopting delaying tactics.  The learned counsel for the appellant stated that their instructions were to mention the fact regarding filing of appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court today.  They had no instructions to argue the matter today.

Final opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for the appellants to lead their arguments in the present cases.

The learned counsel for the respondents/complainants apprised that in some cases, the appellants had not remitted the amounts to the respondents/complainants to meet to and fro and allied expenses.  The learned counsel for the complainants stated that she shall take appropriate action in the matter promptly and ensure that the payments are made within a period of one week and intimation of the same furnished before this Bench as well.

                        List all these matters for final hearing on 02.07.2018.

Dated: 02.07.2018

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

Connected with:

First Appeals No. 1577 of 2016 to 1584 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1586 of 2016 to 1587 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1589 of 2016 to 1595 of 2016;

First Appeals No.  1597 of 2016 to 1601 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1622 of 2016 to 1623 of 2016;

First Appeals No. 1625/2016 & 1643/2017

Heard learned counsels for the appellant and the respondents.  The short point at hand is that the appellant herein in these 26 cases before this Commission has also separately agitated before Hon’ble Supreme Court in another matter relating to one Himanshu Arora and & Anr. in SLP (C) Nos. 12603/2018.  Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.05.2018 has stayed further proceedings in that matter subject to depositing the amount determined by the State Commission within four weeks.  The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that these 26 cases before this Commission are ‘similar matters’ and may therefore pend till the final outcome of the case apropos the said one Himanshu Arora & Anr. before Hon’ble Supreme Court.  It is observed that the respondents in these instant 26 cases are not parties before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Himanshu Arora & Anr.  They are not being afforded opportunity before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

In the obtaining facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant is requested to kindly produce unequivocal case law/s to substantiate her submissions that these 26 cases should be made to pend in this Commission till the final outcome of the matter of Himanshu Arora & Anr. in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

                        List for further hearing on 01.08.2018.

Dated: 01.08.2018

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

                                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF  2016

(Against order dated 26.10.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 174/ 2015

            State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh)

With

I.A. No. 14102 of 2018

 ( Directions)

                              DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                                       …Appellant

                                                                                    Versus

                        Sushila Devi & Anr.                                                             ….Respondents

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016 with I.A. No. 4512 OF 2017 (release of amount);

First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016 with I.A. No. 7847 OF 2018 (release of amount);

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016 with I.A. No. 4092 of 2018 & I.A. No. 13788 OF 2018 (release of amount & modification of Order);

First Appeal No.1347 of 2016 to First Appeal No.1349 of 2016

First Appeal No.1351 of 2016; First Appeal No.1352 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 453 of 2017; First Appeal No.638 of 2017 with I.A. No. 4509 OF 2017 (Stay);

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1576 OF 2016

(From the order dated 13.10.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 291/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh)

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                                       …  Appellant

versus

Kevti Devi & Anr.                                                      …  Respondents

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 1577 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11849 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1579 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11851 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1580 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11852 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1581 of 2016 with I.A. No. 9099 of 2018 ( Release of amount)

First Appeal No. 1643 of 2017

First Appeal No. 1582 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11853 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1583 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11854 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1584 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11855 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1586 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11856 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1587 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11857 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1589 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11858 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1590 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11859 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1591 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11860 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1592 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11861 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1593 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11862 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1594 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11863 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1595 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11864 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1597 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1598 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11865 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1601 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11868 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1623 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11870 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1578 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1599 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11866 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1600 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11867 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1622 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11869 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

First Appeal No. 1625 of 2016 with I.A. No. 11871 of 2017 (Placing Addl. document)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsels for the respondents on First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 alongwith I.A. No. 14102 of 2018 and connected 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 First Appeals, and interalia also in reference to the daily order-sheet dated 23.05.2018 in First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected First Appeals and daily order-sheet dated 02.07.2018 in First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 First Appeals.

First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 and related 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and related 26 First Appeals are dismissed.

Reasoned judgment will follow.

Till the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment, the execution of the impugned order(s) of the State Commission in these 49 First Appeals will remain stayed.

                        Dated: 08.08.2018

F.A. No. 1576 of 2016

I.A. No. 14334 OF 2018 (Review in Chamber)

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2016

(From the order dated 26.10.2015 in Consumer Complaint No.

174/2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

U.T. Chandigarh)

WITH

I.A. No. 14102 OF 2018

    (Directions)

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                                      …  Appellant

versus

Sushila Devi & Anr.                                                             …  Respondents

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 447 of 2016; First Appeal No. 879 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 881 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 648 of 2016 to First Appeal No. 651 of 2016;

First Appeal no. 982 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1145 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1146 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1147 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 1158 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1315 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 767 of 2016;

 First Appeal No.1347 of 2016 to First Appeal No.1349 of 2016

First Appeal No.1351 of 2016; First Appeal No.1352 of 2016;

First Appeal No. 453 of 2017; First Appeal No.638 of 2017

I.A. No. 14496 OF 2018 (Review in chamber)

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1576 OF 2016

(From the order dated 13.10.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 291/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh)

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.                           …  Appellant

versus

Kevti Devi & Anr.                                                      …  Respondents

Connected with:

First Appeal No. 1577 of 2016 ;First Appeal No. 1579 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1580 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1581 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1643 of 2017; First Appeal No. 1582 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1583 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1584 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1586 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1587 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1589 of 2016;First Appeal No. 1590 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1591 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1592 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1593 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1594 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1595 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1597 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1598 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1601 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1623 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1578 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1599 of 2016; First Appeal No. 1600 of 2016

First Appeal No. 1622 of 2016 ; First Appeal No. 1625 of 2016

The review applications are listed for review in chamber.

Perused the review applications.

Heard the review applications in open bench.

The review applications are dismissed.

Reasons for dismissing the review applications will be included in the reasoned judgment in First Appeal No.382 of 2016 and related 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and related 26 First Appeals (which were dismissed on 01.08.2018 with reasoned judgment to follow).

14.    Another first appeal no. 1575 of 2016 was dismissed as withdrawn (with a settlement reported) on 25.07.2018. The facts and situation in which an ‘amicable settlement’ was reported to have been arrived at in this case were also inter alia discussed during the arguments on 01.08.2018.

15.    This first appeal no.1575 of 2016 was filed against the State Commission’s Order dated 13.10.2016. The operative portion of the impugned Order dated 13.10.2016 of the State Commission is as below:

For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 291/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

………Consumer Complaints bearing No:

                        (289/2016 and 337/2016)

 The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

1. To refund the amounts of Rs.35,93,207.07 and Rs.44,10,136.00 respectively, alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, to the respective complainant(s), from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest @18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of default till actual payment;

2. To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant(s), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

    

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

Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaints bearing Nos.289/2016, 301/2016, 310/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016, 326/2016, 327/2016, 328/2016, 330/2016, 331/2016, 332/2016, 337/2016, 341/2016, 342/2016, 370/2016, 371/2016, 372/2016, 373/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016, 393/2016, 394/2016, 395/2016, 400/2016 and 407/2016.

16.    The daily orders of the case-file read as below:

Dated: 19.12.2016

F.A. No. 1575 of 2016

        With

I.A. No.12451 of 2016 (Stay)

connected with:

First Appeal No. 1588 of 2016

With

I.A. No.12464 of 2016 (Stay)

                                The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in both the above cases, they had already offered possession of the property to the complainants.  In First Appeal No. 1575/2016, a copy of letter dated 29.10.2016 offering possession had been placed at page no. 349 of the paperbook.  In First Appeal No. 1588/2016, the copy of the letter dated 15.10.2016 offering possession was placed at page no. 327 of the paper book.

                        Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 02.03.2017.

The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of entire principal amount as stated in the order of the State Commission in both the cases within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially for a period of one year.

Dated: 02.03.2017

F.A. No.1575 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 1588 of 2016

                         In First Appeal No. 1588/2016, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate has put in appearance for both the respondents.  He stated that he shall be filing his vakalatnama today itself.  Service of the notice has not been affected on the respondent in First Appeal No. 1575/2016 and the notice has been received back with the postal remarks ‘left’. 

Issue fresh notice for the service of the said respondent.  ‘Dasti’ in addition.

                        List the matter for further hearing on 13.09.2017.

Dated: 13.09.2017

F.A. No.1575 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 1588 of 2016

                     The learned counsel who entered appearance for the respondents in the respective cases stated that they have had already filed their respective Vakalatnamas. Copy of the paper book has been received by the learned counsel for the respondent in FA No. 1588 of 2016. The Registry may provide another copy of the paper book to the learned counsel for the respondent in FA No. 1575 of 2016.

                        In both the cases the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondents within a week by demand drafts in their respective names to cover their to & fro and allied expenses.

                        List the matters for final hearing at admission stage on
20-12-2017. 

Dated: 20.12.2017

F.A. No.1575 of 2016

connected with:

First Appeal No. 1588 of 2016

                        A letter of adjournment has been moved by the appellant stating that due to non-availability of learned senior counsel, Mr. K. Venugopal, short adjournment be given. The learned counsel for the respondents are present.

                        FA/1575/2016

                        The amount of Rs.5,000/- has been paid today before the bench by cheque.

                        FA/1588/2016

                        The learner counsel for the respondents submit that the amount of Rs.5,000/- has not been received till date. The appellant shall verify the matter and resolve the issue within two weeks.

                        List these matters for further proceedings on 25.07.2018.

Dated: 25.07.2018

F.A. No.1575 of 2016

The learned counsel for the appellant wants to withdraw its appeal. 

Both sides submit that an amicable settlement has been arrived at and that they will file a copy of the settlement signed by both the sides through a formal application with the Registry within one week.  No comments of this Commission on the ingredients and contents of the said settlement.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.  The proceedings before this Commission are closed.

The statutory amount deposited before this Commission be released in favour of the appellant after due verification.

17.    Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 18.05.2018 in Himanshu Arora and & Anr. in SLP (C) No. 12603/2018 is also reproduced below for reference ahead:  

Delay condoned.

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Issue notice and stay of further proceedings, subject to the petitioners deposit the amount determined by the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today.

18.    With the salient relevant record having been reproduced for reference, we come to the issues at hand.

19.    As recorded in the daily order of 23.05.2018 in f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 f. a. s, it was inter alia submitted by the appellant – builder co. that in “identical matters” (of Himanshu Arora & Anr.) vide Hon’ble Supreme Court’s interim Order dated 18.05.2018 in SLP (C) No.12603 of 2018 further proceedings in respect of a final Order dated 11.12.2017 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Commission had been stayed.

20.    As recorded in the daily order of 02.07.2018 in f. a. no.1576 of 2016 and connected 26 f. a. s,  a short point was raised that the appellant – builder co. in these (1+) 26 cases before this Commission has also separately agitated before Hon’ble Supreme Court in another matter relating to one Himanshu Arora and & Anr. in SLP (C) No. 12603/2018.  Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 18.05.2018 has stayed further proceedings in that matter subject to depositing the amount determined by the State Commission within four weeks.  The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant – builder co. was that these (1+) 26 cases before this Commission are “similar matters” and may therefore pend till the final outcome of the case apropos the said one Himanshu Arora & Anr. before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was observed that the respondents - complainants in these instant (1+) 26 cases are not parties before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Himanshu Arora & Anr.  They are not being afforded opportunity before Hon’ble Supreme Court.  In the obtaining facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant – builder co. was requested to kindly produce unequivocal case law/s to substantiate her submissions that these (1+) 26 cases should be made to pend in this Commission till the final outcome of the matter of Himanshu Arora & Anr. in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

21.    On 01.08.2018 f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 f. a. s and
f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 f. a. s were taken up together.

22.    In f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 f. a. s an I.A. no.14102 of 2018 was filed by the builder co., praying that the present proceedings be deferred.

23.    No application was filed by the appellant – builder co. in f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 f. a. s to professionally place on record case laws to substantiate its claim that the proceedings should pend till the disposal of the SLP (C) No. 12603 of 2018 filed in the case of Himanshu Arora & Anr. against a “similar matter” decided by a co-ordinate bench on 11.12.2017. The following citations and judgements were handed over one by one in an adhoc and disjointed way during arguments on 01.08.2018 by learned counsels for the appellant – builder co.:

Citations:

(i)     Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and Ors. Vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Ors.,

Civil Appeals No. 5736 of 1985 & 508 of 1986, decided on 13.07.1989 by Hon’ble Supreme Court

AIR 1990 SC 261

Judgements:

(ii)     Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (UOI),

W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 340-43 of 1993, decided on

09.07.1997 by Hon’ble Supreme Court

1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 356

(iii)    Special Machines, Karnal Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., Original Petition No. 32 of 1989, decided on 22.12.1989 by this Commission

          1 (1991) CPJ 78 (NC)

(iv)    Shantha Sinha and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI)

and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 342 of 2017, decided on

28.04.2017 by Hon’ble Supreme Court  

          2017(6) SCALE 532

(v)     M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.,

          Appeal (Civil) 3594 of 2001, decided on 04.05.2001 by Hon’ble Supreme Court

(vi)    Peter vs. Sara,

          Decided on 27.09.2006 by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

2006(4) KLT 219

          24.    In addition, the following daily order of a coordinate bench of this Commission was handed over by learned counsel for the appellant – builder co. during the arguments on 01.08.2018:

         Coordinate Bench of this Commission in First Appeal Nos. 2140 & 2141 to 2150 of 2017

         Dated: 30.07.2018

Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that the SLP, filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 09.04.2018, passed by this Commission in Review Application No. 114/2018, is likely to be listed on 27.08.2018.

List the Appeals on 11.09.2018.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants shall inform about the status of the case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

As prayed by Learned Counsel for the Appellants in First Appeals No. 2145, 2146 and 2147 of 2017, a week’s time is allowed to him to deposit the principal amount before the State Commission.

25.    On 01.08.2018 the appellant – builder co. principally argued that:

          one: The proceedings should pend in these 49 f. a. s (as well as in all other f. a. s before this bench) till the outcome of an SLP in a “similar” / “identical” matter decided by a co-ordinate bench.

          two: The procedure adopted by other co-ordinate benches in this regard (and also adopted by this bench once earlier) is binding on this bench.

26.    We would first want to explain the situation that had been created in its case by the appellant – builder co. 

27.    Essentially, two different types of Orders had been passed by the State Commission:

one: refund of the principal amount; interest thereon; compensation; cost of litigation; stipulated time of making payment of the complete awarded amount to the complainant; and penal interest in case of delay in making payment beyond the stipulated time  [f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 f. a. s ].

two:  hand over physical possession of the unit complete in all respects within a stipulated time on payment by the complainant of the amount due against him; execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit within a stipulated time; compensation; cost of litigation. [f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 f.  a. s ].

{In f.a. no. 1576 of 2016 and (as on then) connected 22 f. a. s the appellant – builder co. did not agitate the relief of handing over physical possession of the unit complete in all respects and of execution and registration of the sale deed. It only agitated the award of compensation and the cost of litigation [refer daily order dated 19.12.2016 (para 13 above).]}

28.    To reach to the overall (mis)conduct of its case by the appellant – builder co., reference may first be made to section 19 A of the Act 1986, which reads as below:

Hearing of Appeal - An appeal filed before the State Commission or the National Commission shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to finally dispose of the appeal within a period of ninety days from the date of its admission:

Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by such Commission:

Provided further that the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act:

Provided also that in the event of an appeal being disposed of after the period so specified, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall record in writing the reasons for the same at the time of disposing of the said appeal. 

29.    It is specifically stipulated in section 19 A that an endeavour shall be made to finally dispose of the appeal within a period of 90 days from the date of its admission. The right of appeal has responsibilities attached. The responsibility of making an honest endeavour to finally dispose of the appeal within 90 days rests both with the bench as also with the appellant, it is not of the bench alone. When the appellant exercises its right of appeal, it has also to discharge its responsibility towards its timely disposal.

30.    Likewise the notice issued to the respondents – complainants has a condition attached i.e. payment of cost towards travel and allied expenses within the stipulated time. Omission to make the payment or to delay the payment beyond the time stipulated with the issue of notice and especially to delay the payment beyond the date of first appearance of the respondents –complainants negates / dilutes the very purpose for which the cost was ordered. It creates an imperfection in the notice (whether this imperfection remains ‘minor’ or becomes ‘material’ if it is seen in conjunction with other connected facts will become evident hereafter). When the appellant exercises its right of appeal, it has also to discharge its responsibility of payment of cost towards travel and allied expenses within the time stipulated with the issue of the notice.

31.    Similarly the stay on the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission also has a condition attached i.e. deposit of the stipulated amount within the stipulated period with the State Commission. When it comes in appeal, the case has already been decided by the State Commission after examination and with reasons recorded. The outcome of the appeal cannot be made infructuous; operation of the impugned order is ordinarily stayed till the disposal of the appeal. But some just and reasonable security and discipline for the (future contingent) execution of the State Commission’s Order is also simultaneously ensured. When the appellant exercises it right of appeal, it has also to discharge its responsibility of depositing the stipulated amount in the time stipulated with the grant of stay on the operation of the impugned Order. If the condition of depositing the stipulated amount within the stipulated time is delayed or not complied with, a material imperfection in the grant of stay is created. Sustained enjoyment of the benefit of stay with sustained violation of the attached condition of deposit cannot be allowed ad infinitum.

32.    In these instant 49 cases (f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected
f. a. s and f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and 26 connected f. a. s) a plain reading of the daily orders (paras 11, 13) shows that the only tangible action taken has been to (i) issue notice; (ii) monitor / grant further time for making payment of cost of travel and allied expenses to the respondents – complainants; (iii) grant stay on the operation of the impugned Orders of the State Commission; (iv) monitor / grant further time for making deposit of the stipulated amount. Even on occasions that the cases were listed for final arguments, these issues were taken up, but not the final arguments [refer daily orders dated 22.03.2017, 07.04.2017 in f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected f. a. s (para 11) and daily orders dated 24.03.2017, 19.07.2017, 07.09.2017 in f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and 26 connected f. a. s (para 13)]. {Even the two limited issues for adjudication in f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and (as on then) connected 22 f. a. s, of compensation and of cost of litigation, were subsequently lost sight of, and never re-visited after being so identified on 19.12.2016 (refer para 27).}  This was true for the period prior to 11.12.2017 i.e. the date on which a final Order was passed by a co-ordinate bench in a “similar” / “identical” matter of one Himanshu Kumar & Anr., true for the period subsequent thereto, true for the period prior to 18.05.2018 i.e. the date on which Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the case of Himanshu Kumar and Anr., true for the period subsequent thereto.   

33.    During arguments on 01.08.2018 learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. were unconcerned about (non)compliance of the condition attached with issue of notice or (non)compliance of the condition attached with grant of stay on the operation of the impugned Orders of the State Commission. While intransigently insisting that further proceedings should pend in all cases before this bench (i.e. in f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected f. a. s and f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and 26 connected f. a. s which were taken up on 01.08.2018 as well as in all other f. a. s pending before this bench) till the outcome of an SLP in a “similar” / “identical” matter, they were simultaneously also professing that this bench could and should continue to monitor / grant more time for compliance of the condition attached with the issue of notice and of the condition attached with the grant of stay on the operation of the impugned Orders as also to accept ‘amicable settlements’ if and as effected in any pending f. a.         

34.    We are however of the opinion that callous and continuous disregard to compliance of the conditions attached with notice and stay shows serious failure of the appellant – builder co. to discharge its responsibilities while enjoying its right of appeal and benefit of stay. And also that the bench cannot and should not be reduced to function only for monitoring / granting more time for fulfilling the conditions and to accept ‘amicable settlements’ as and when reported.

35.    A question arose whether a fair ‘amicable settlement’ can at all be effected in the facts and situation created by the appellant – builder co.

36.    Earlier, on 25.07.2018, in f. a. no. 1575 of 2016 an ‘amicable settlement’ was reported by both sides. The f. a. no. 1575 of 2016 was filed against the impugned Order dated 13.10.2016 of the State Commission.  Refund of the principal amount; cost of litigation; stipulated time of making payment of the complete awarded amount to the complainant; and penal interest in case of delay in making payment beyond the stipulated time had been ordered by the State Commission.  On ‘amicable settlement’ being reported by both sides this bench inter alia recorded “No comments of this Commission on the ingredients and contents of the said settlement.” This bench refrained from recording ‘settled in terms of the settlement’. The case was dismissed as withdrawn. That is, this bench did not endorse in any manner the terms of the settlement.

37.    Amicable settlement is an integral part of speedy and simple resolution of consumer disputes through a quasi-judicial machinery set up by the Act 1986. However, for a fair amicable settlement there a few fundamental requirements, including, one, an impartial judge (i.e. this bench), and, two, an overall fair environment (i.e. a level playing field). Here, the impartial judge had been paralysed by the appellant – builder co., the playing field had been made uneven. The respondent – complainant had to sit in negotiation knowing that the Order of the State Commission in his hand was not executionable in any reasonable time.  His principal amount was with the appellant – builder co. There were no signs of the builder co.’s appeal being decided in any reasonable time (far less than in the normative ideal period of 90 days, which had already expired). And the bench could also be viewed to be acquiescing with the appellant – builder co.’s misconduct of the proceedings and to be happy in its own paralysis.

38.    One point argued by the appellant – builder co. was that in the light of the procedure adopted by other co-ordinate benches and by this bench itself once earlier, the proceedings should pend in these 49 cases [as well as in all other cases before this bench (which are not being discussed here, as they were not taken up on 01.08.2018)].

39.    The daily orders referred to by the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. are record of the daily proceedings. If it is recorded that a “similar” / “identical”  matter is before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in that case and that the case at hand before the bench is adjourned to a later date, it does not imply that such daily proceedings become binding. For a precedent to be binding, in terms of what we understand of the doctrine of binding precedent, one, the issue in question has to be duly examined, and, two, the reasons for arriving at the conclusion arrived at have to be duly recorded. Without examination or reasons recorded on the issue in question, daily proceedings as reflected in daily orders do not become a binding precedent.  Only and only if an issue is examined and decided with a reasoned order, then and only then it becomes a binding precedent.  [And then, too, for further reasons recorded subsequently, the precedent could be reviewed or referred to a larger bench etc. as per the new facts and wiser counsel and as per the law.]

40.    We may also note, in the context of the doctrine of binding precedent, that there is a material difference between interim Orders and final Orders / Judgments. The daily orders referred to by the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. are not final Orders / Judgments.   

41.    The daily orders of other co-ordinate benches as well as an earlier daily order of this bench were perused. A bare reading makes it clear that they were passed in the routine without examination and reasons recorded. And the fact remains that they are not final Orders / Judgments.  

42.    The fundamental question was whether the proceedings should pend till the outcome of an SLP in a “similar” / “identical” matter decided by a co-ordinate bench.

43.    The said case of one Himanshu Kumar & Anr. was decided through a final Order by a co-ordinate bench on 11.12.2017. Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 12603 of 2018 on 18.05.2018 issued notice and stayed further proceedings in that matter. The SLP is still before Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appellant - builder co. in the case before the co-ordinate bench (and now in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court) is the same. The respondents – complainants are different i.e. different from the respondents – complainants in these instant 49 f. a. s before this bench. They are not parties before Hon’ble Supreme Court. They are not being afforded opportunity before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stayed further proceedings in these instant 49
f. a. s.

44.    Learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. could not show and did not affirm that any mention of these 49 f. a. s (as well as of the other f. a. s of this appellant - builder co. pending before this bench) was made explicitly (or implicitly) in the petition seeking special leave. Nor could they show or affirm that any prayer was made to seek Hon’ble Supreme Court’s  order that further proceedings in these instant 49 f. a. s (as well as in other f.a.s before this bench) be stayed. It was but admitted and accepted that no specific order of Hon’ble Supreme Court to stay further proceedings in these instant 49 f. a. s (as well as in other f. a. s pending before this bench) exists.

45.    Whether or not the facts are “similar” / “identical”, whether or not the conclusions arrived at and the reasons therefor in the final Order dated 11.12.2017 of a co-ordinate bench in another case of the appellant – builder co. are relevant / applicable, is a matter of examination and arguments, ordinarily done in the routine at the stage of final hearing.

46.    We are aware that if the same or similar facts or issues have been decided in one way or the other through a final Order by a co-ordinate bench, we have to examine the relevance / applicability and to either agree with reasons or disagree with reasons, and, in case of disagreement, refer to a third member / larger bench.

47.    The implications, one, of the final Order dated 11.12.2017 passed by a co-ordinate bench, and, two, of the interim or final Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, have to be and would be (would have been) considered in the normal wont at the stage of final hearing.

48.    We have not examined the final Order dated 11.12.2017 of a coordinate bench. The contingency for examining it would have arisen only if final arguments in final hearing had been reached.

49.    Another argument professed by the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. was that “substantial questions of law” were before Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore we should await decision. As per the submission of learned counsels for the appellant – builder co., the “substantial questions of law” were as recorded in para 7 (a) to (e) of its I.A.No.14102 of 2018 filed in f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected
f. a. s. The same are reproduced below:

7.      It is submitted that few of the similar issues involved in the captioned First Appeal as well as in the other appeals pending before this Hon’ble Bench and the petitions pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP, are as follows:

1. Whether the Hon’ble Commission had a jurisdiction to grant compensatory relief when the party claiming so, had admittedly not suffered any loss or damage and the present case does not match that yardstick.

2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Force majeure clause as agreed to by the Respondents / Allotees in the Independent Floor Buyers Agreement.

3. Whether the impugned order is bad in law for awarding compensation for delay despite the fact that the time for construction under the agreement stood enlarged vide petitioner’s “Exit Option” offered to the complainant?

4. Whether the case of delivery of possession, albeit belatedly, stands on a different footing as compared to a case of non-delivery of possession inasmuch as in case of delivery of possession, though belatedly, the allottee still enjoys the asset, i.e. apartment and is compensated by the enhanced cost of property?

5. Whether a clause in the agreement entered between the parties of their own free will, regarding delay and the compensation payable thereof, can be negated / overridden / modified under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, after quite many years of execution thereof, on the basis that same though disclosed and agreed to is “unfair”?

50.   The issues mentioned are normal issues that arise in builder co. – consumer agreements / disputes. They are decided in the routine while adjudicating such cases. A bare perusal shows that they are not “substantial questions of law”. We feel it unnecessary to dwell on what constitutes a substantial question of law; it would be misplaced in the present context.

51.    The citations and judgements handed over by learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. during arguments on 01.08.2018 (para 23) as well as the case laws referred to in its I.A. No. 14102 of 2018 filed in first appeal no. 382 of 2018 have been perused by us. We find that they are not relevant or applicable on the facts and specificities of this case, they are not relevant or applicable here in the manner and for the purpose their relevance and applicability was sought to be argued by learned counsels for the appellant – builder co.

52.    On 01.08.2018 during arguments the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. made all their contentions in detail. We would first like to express that the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. were perfect in addressing and arguing before the bench, they were advocates, they were gentlemen. However, in all fairness, we have to write that an underlying implicit thread in the whole discussion was that this bench was constituted of non-judicial members and as such was not competent in law to adjudicate the issues. We feel we should briefly put the question of competence in perspective.

53.    Notwithstanding that one of us has a doctorate in law and one of us has a graduate degree in law in the first division, and notwithstanding that one of us has had over five years’ experience in this Commission itself and one of us has had fair experience of court-work including revenue court–work (in which the C.P.C. and the Evidence Act were applicable, civil court jurisdiction was barred, parties were represented through advocates, reasoned judgements were delivered and were subject to scrutiny), the fact is that we are not from the judicial service.

54.    But, briefly, we would like to refer to the following:

                   Statement of Objects and Reasons

The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.

To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.   

Aim and Object

An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consum­ers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith.

Proviso to Section 20 Composition of the National Commission

Provided that not more than fifty per cent. of the members shall be from amongst the persons having a judicial background.

Explanation. -- For the purposes of this clause, the expression “persons having judicial background” shall mean persons having knowledge and experience for at least a period of ten years as a presiding officer at the district level court or any tribunal at equivalent level:

55.     A reading of the above in conjunction makes clear to a sufficient extent the intention of the legislature and the intent of the legislation.

56.    We would also like to refer to the judgment delivered by a five – membered bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, authored by
Hon’ble Mr. A. M. Ahmadi, then Chief Justice of India, himself, in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., 18^th March 1997 in Appeal (Civil) 481 of 1980, in which, inter alia, the following question was framed and answered by the Hon’ble Court:

(2)  Whether the Tribunals, constituted either under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution, possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory provision/rule?

         The Hon’ble Court had answered the question inter alia as below:

“However, it is important to emphasise that though the subordinate judiciary or Tribunals created under ordinary legislations cannot exercise the power of judicial review of legislative action to the exclusion of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, there is no constitutional prohibition against their performing a supplemental--as opposed to a substitution - role in this respect. That such a situation is contemplated within the constitutional scheme becomes evident when one analyses Clause (3) of Article 32 of the Constitution……”

   (para 80 of the Judgment)

“…..So long as the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and that of this Court under Article 32 is retained, there is no reason why the power to test the validity of legislations against the provisions of the Constitution cannot be conferred upon Administrative Tribunals created under the Act or upon Tribunals created under Article 323B of the Constitution. …….”

(para 81 of the Judgment)

“There are pressing reasons why we are anxious to preserve the conferment of such a power on these Tribunals……”

(para 82 of the Judgment)

“………It has been contended before us that the Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling matters where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannot bring ourselves to agree to this proposition as that may result in splitting up proceedings and may cause avoidable delay. If such a view were to be adopted, it would be open for litigants to raise constitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, to directly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. Moreover, even in these special branches of law, some areas do involve the consideration of constitutional questions on a regular basis; for instance, in service law matters, a large majority of cases involve an interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. To hold that the Tribunals have no power to handle matters involving constitutional issues would not serve the purpose for which they were constituted……. While saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter.”

(para 91 of the Judgment)

“Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional setup, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the concerned High Court may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal.”

(para 94 of the Judgment)

“..…..For these reasons, it has been urged that the appointment of Administrative Members to Administrative Tribunals be stopped. We find it difficult to accept such a contention. It must be remembered that the setting-up of these Tribunals is founded on the premise that specialist bodies comprising both trained administrators and those with judicial experience would, by virtue of their specialised knowledge, be better equipped to dispense speedy and efficient justice. It was expected that a judicious mix of judicial members and those with grass- roots experience would best serve this purpose. To hold that the Tribunal should consist only of judicial members would attack the primary basis of the theory pursuant to which they have been constituted. Since the Selection Committee is now headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court, nominated by the Chief Justice of India, we have reason to believe that the Committee would take care to ensure that administrative members are chosen from amongst those who have some background to deal with such cases.”

(para 96 of the Judgment)

57.    Statutory appeal under the Act 1986 lies in Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble High Court exercises superintendence (Article 227) over this bench. This bench’s Orders, functioning are subject to scrutiny, superintendence.        

58.    This bench has been constituted by Hon’ble President of the Commission, who is a retired judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Other single and division benches comprising of non-judicial members are functioning in the Commission. This bench has been taking up builder co. – complainant cases of this builder co. and of other builder cos. in the routine.

59.    The above (paras 53 to 58) put the question of competence in perspective.

60.    We do not feel any need to examine competence, when the case before us is the overall misconduct of its first appeals by the appellant – builder co.

61.    In any case this bench cannot determine its own competence.

62.    To summarize, the propositions propounded by the appellant –

builder co. were:

one:   daily orders become binding precedents

two:  if one (statedly) “identical” / “similar” matter of one particular appellant – builder co. is decided by a co-ordinate bench and is agitated in Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Court issues notice and stays further proceedings in that particular matter (alone), then all “identical” / “ similar” matters before this bench should pend on an as–is–where–is  basis till the final outcome of the SLP; the only act permitted to this bench would be to give further time to pay the cost for travel and allied expenses to the respondents – complainants, give further time to the appellant – builder co. to make the deposit with the State Commission stipulated at the time of grant of stay on the operation of the impugned Orders of the State Commission, accept ‘amicable settlement’ if and as effected in any particular case, adjourn the cases on request. 

63.    We have already reasoned that a binding precedent emanates only and only if the issue in question is examined and reasons for the conclusions arrived at are recorded and also that there is a material difference between an interim Order and a final Order / Judgement. In this particular case, we find, that the issue has not been examined or decided with reasons in any of the daily orders referred to by the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. and the fact is that the daily orders referred to by the learned counsels are not final Orders / Judgements.

64.    And we are of the view that, first, whether or not the matter decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Commission through a final Order is “similar” / “identical” can be seen only after examination, to be undertaken in the normal wont at the stage of final hearing, second, the implications of the final Order dated 11.12.2017 passed in a (statedly) “similar” / “identical” matter by a co-ordinate bench of this Commission and of the interim or final Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in that particular matter can be seen only after examination, to be undertaken in the normal wont at the stage of final hearing.

65.     The matter of one Himanshu Kumar and Anr. is before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further proceedings in that particular matter and in that particular matter alone have been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. could not show and did not affirm that any mention of these 49 f. a. s pending before this bench (or of the other f. a. s pending before this bench) was made in the petition seeking special leave or that a specific prayer to stay proceedings in all these f. a. s was made in the petition.  The respondents – complainants in these 49 f. a. s are not and have not been made parties in the SLP. They are not being afforded opportunity in Hon’ble Supreme Court. Admittedly no specific order of Hon’ble Supreme Court to stay further proceedings in these instant 49 f. a. s (as well as in other f. a. s before this bench) exists.   

66.    In such situation the argument that all these f. a. s should be made to pend on an as-is-where-is basis is misconceived and devoid of merit (this may also be viewed in the context of the statutory provision of endeavouring to decide the appeals within 90 days).

67.    Callous and continuous, intentional and willful, violation of the condition of timely payment of cost of travel and allied expenses to the respondents - complainants, in our view, create a material imperfection in the notice. Callous and continuous, intentional and willful, violation of the condition of timely deposit of the stipulated amount creates a material imperfection in the stay on the operation of the impugned Orders. We do not agree that the bench could continue to grant time to meet the conditions attached with issue of notice and grant of stay in the light of the callous and continuous, intentional and wilful, disregard of this Commission’s directions by the appellant – builder co.

68.    We are also of the view that “amicable settlements” come under a real cloud in the facts and situation created by the builder co., when the neutral judge is intentionally and wilfully paralyzed and the playing field is intentionally and wilfully made uneven. We cannot “accept” “amicable settlements” in “terms of the settlement”.

69.    We do not agree that non-acceptance by this bench of the propositions pressed intransigently by the appellant – builder co. would in any manner be improper. On the contrary we are of the opinion that the bench acquiescing in the overall misconduct of its first appeals by the appellant – builder co. and being happy in its own paralysis would be improper.

70.    We do not feel it necessary or proper to examine our own competence.

71.    The issue at hand is intentional and wilful overall misconduct of its first appeals by the appellant – builder co., not of competence of this bench.

72.    Notwithstanding the above discussion, it is also pertinent that on being asked to be categorical if the appellant – builder co. would agree to finally argue its case on merit in final hearing, the categorical reply of the learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. was in the negative.

73.    We may note here that the Act 1986 is for ‘consumer protection’, for better protection of the interest of consumers, for speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes through a quasi – judicial machinery, recognizedly for providing a fair and just disposition to the ordinary consumer in a fight between unequals (not, but to note, a biased disposition, or a disposition with compromise on facts or law or on the merits of the case). The consumer in a consumer – builder co. dispute cannot and should not be made into a mute spectator to the impedimentary and disruptive mechanics of the builder co. and to the helpless passivity of the bench.

74.    For callous and continuous, intentional and wilful, omission to discharge its responsibilities attached with the right to appeal, creating an intransigent impasse and not allowing or agreeing to final hearing and final adjudication of its first appeals, overall misconduct (i.e. mismanagement with culpable neglect of duties) of its case, as evident from the afore discussion, we were constrained to dismiss the 49 first appeals vide our Order dated 01.08.2018, which is reproduced and
re-iterated below:

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsels for the respondents on First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 alongwith I.A. No. 14102 of 2018 and connected 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 First Appeals, and interalia also in reference to the daily order-sheet dated 23.05.2018 in First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected First Appeals and daily order-sheet dated 02.07.2018 in First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 First Appeals.

First Appeal No. 382 of 2016 and related 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No.1576 of 2016 and related 26 First Appeals are dismissed.

Reasoned judgment will follow.

Till the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment, the execution of the impugned order(s) of the State Commission in these 49 First Appeals will remain stayed.

(The protection from execution till the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment was granted suo moto.)

75.    Review applications, I.A. no. 14334 of 2018 and I.A.  no. 14496 of 2018, were filed by the appellant –  builder co. praying to be granted opportunity to argue these first appeals (dismissed on 01.08.2018) “on merits”. The reviews was listed in chamber. They were taken up in bench and heard on 08.08.2018. The learned senior counsel and learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. argued that they may be heard on merit in final hearing. A submission was also made that they are prepared to argue on merit in final hearing. We however feel that an Order whose reasons have as yet not been pronounced cannot and should not ordinarily be reviewed.  Review should normally be considered after the examination and reasons are available. And also that subsequent facts or submissions i.e. subsequent to the record and position obtaining on the relevant date i. e. 01.08.2018 should normally not be considered (unless and until in exceptional cases a logical and apt ‘locus’ is visible). In our view the review applications were misconceived, misplaced, devoid of merit and premature. The review applications were dismissed vide our Order dated 08.08.2018, which is reproduced and re-iterated below:

The review applications are listed for review in chamber.

Perused the review applications.

Heard the review applications in open bench.

The review applications are dismissed.

Reasons for dismissing the review applications will be included in the reasoned judgment in First Appeal No.382 of 2016 and related 21 First Appeals and First Appeal No. 1576 of 2016 and related 26 First Appeals (which were dismissed on 01.08.2018 with reasoned judgment to follow).

(Here we have not gone into some erroneous facts stated in the two  review applications or into the attempts at distorting the overall perspective of the matter or of the arguments of 01.08.2018; the same is unnecessary in the light of what has been stated  above in this para 75.)

76.    The first appeals have been dismissed for intentional and wilful overall misconduct of its case by the appellant – builder co. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant – builder co. at the time of filing of first appeal shall be deposited by the Registry in this Commission’s Consumer Legal Aid Fund within a period of four weeks.

77.    The appellant – builder co. has misused the statutory processes provided for for better protection of the interest of the consumers. It is just, appropriate and necessary to give stern advice of caution through the imposition of just, apt and reasonable cost. A sum of rupees twenty five thousand each shall be paid by the appellant – builder co. to each respondent – complainant by means of ‘payee a/c only’ demand drafts in favour of the respondents – complainants within a period of four weeks.

78.    Needless to add, the stay granted on 01.08.2018 on the execution of its Order(s) by the State Commission does not survive after the reasons for the Order of 01.08.2018 have been delivered. The State Commission shall proceed for execution of its Order(s) as per the law, both for enforcement under section 25 and for imposition of penalty under section 27 of the Act 1986.

79.    Hon’ble High Court of Delhi’s Order dated 20.08.2018  in C.M. (M) 951 / 2018 has been brought to our notice (through mention in bench by one learned counsel while this bench was on some other case):

CM No.33258-59/2018 

CM No.33258/2018 an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for exemption from filing certified copies of the order dated 1.8.2018 passed by the NCDRC and CM No.33259/2018 an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures. 

Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CM(M) 951/2018 and CM No. 33257/2018 

Initial submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner. 

Order dated 8.8.2018 has now been submitted during the course of submissions made contending to the effect that even the application seeking review of order dated 1.8.2018 was dismissed with it having been observed that the reasons for dismissing the review applications would be included in the reasoned judgment in First Appeal No. 382/2016 which was dismissed on 1.8.2012 observing that reasoned judgment to follow.

During the course of submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner, reliance has inter alia been placed on the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Another:  (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 583, wherein qua the proceeding before the NCLT and NCLAT with reference to the observations in para 24 (xiii) to the effect:

“24 ((xiii) Two-member Benches of the Tribunal should always have a Judicial Member.  Whenever any larger or Special benches are constituted, the number of Technical Members shall not exceed the Judicial Members.”,

to contend that atleast one of the members of the NCRDC ought to have been a judicial member and that vide proceedings dated 1.9.2017 in CM(M) 953/2017, it had been observed by this Court to the effect:

“12 As far as I recall, the purport of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Another :  (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 583  is of the necessity of the judicial members in the Tribunal.  It cannot be lost sight of that Section 20(1A) did not find mention in the Consumer Protection Act as originally enacted and has been inserted therein only by amendment with effect from 15th March, 2003.  It requires consideration, whether NCDRC can function and pass orders with a Single Administrative Member Bench only and whether it would be contrary to the principle enshrined in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Another.”

and it has been submitted that during the course of proceedings in the said petition itself on 21.11.2017 on behalf NCDRC a statement had been made by the Joint Registrar of the NCRDC submitting  to the effect that the matter would be listed before a Bench with a judicial member,  notice of the petition and CM No.33257/2018 be issued to the respondents on taking of steps by the petitioner through all permissible modes including approved courier with the tracking report being placed on record, returnable on 4.10.2018 till which date the operation of the impugned orders dated 1.8.2018 in FAO No. 382/2016 , 447/2016, 879/2016, 881/2016, 648/2016 ,  651/2016, 982/2016, 1145/2016, 1146/2016, 1147/2016, 1158/2016, 1315/2016, 767/2016, 1347/2016, 1349/2016, 1351/2016, 1352/2016, 453/2017, 638/2017, 1577/2016, 1579/2016, 1580/2016, 1581/2016, 1643/2016, 1582/2016, 1583/2016, 1584/2016, 1586/2016,  1587/2016,  1589/2016,  1590/2016,  1591/2016, 1594/2016, 1595/2016,  1597/2016,  1598/2016, 1601/2016, 1623/2016, 1578/2016,  1599/2016, 1600/2016, 1622/2016 and 1625/2016 and also order dated 8.8.2018 of the learned NCDRC in IA No. 1334/2018 is stayed.

Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master, as prayed.

80.    In compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s Order dated 20.08.2018, operation of this Commission’s Orders dated 01.08.2018 and 08.08.2018 shall remain stayed till 04.10.2018 or till or as per further Orders of Hon’ble High Court. The directions contained in paras 76, 77 and 78 will also remain stayed.

81.    This Order may be placed in the case–files.

So disposed of.