Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/742/2017

Ms. Deepali Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parsvnath Developers - Opp.Party(s)

H.P.S. Kochhar Adv.

18 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	742 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	13.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	18.05.2018

 

1. Ms.Deepali Arora d/o Sh.Yash Vir.
2. Ms.Upasana d/o Sh.Yash Vir and
3. Ms.Rancy d/o Sh.Yash Vir.

All residents of Flat no.303, GH-7A, Sector 20 Panchkula, Haryana, through authorized representative Sh.Yash Vir s/o Sh.Arjan Dev, resident of Flat no.303, GH-7A, Sector 20 Panchkula

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Parsvnath Developers, SCO No.1, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director and Directors.

Second Address:-Site of Parsvnath Developers, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Managing Director and Directors.

2. Parsvnath Developers, Corporate Office, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director and Directors.
3. Parsvnath Developers, Registered Office, Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahadra Metro Station, Shahadra, Delhi-110032, through its Managing Director and Directors.
4. Samar Estate Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office #254 NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director and Directors (complaint against it dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2018)

 .... Opposite Parties

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

 

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

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:        Sh. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate for the complainants.

                        Sh. Akash Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh.Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

                        Complaint qua opposite party no.4 dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2018.

 

JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

               

                The complainants purchased a flat bearing No.T3-602, Sixth Floor, Tower No.T2, measuring 1780 square feet, from opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their project namely “Parsvnath Royale”, Sector 20, Panchkula, for a sum of Rs.57.85 lacs. Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 03.02.2011. As per Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, possession of the unit was agreed to be handed over within a period of 24 months plus 6 months i.e. total 30 months, of the commencement of construction. Relevant contents of Clause 10 (a) reads thus: -

“Construction of the Flat is likely to be completed within a period of Twenty-Four (24) months, from the date of commencement of construction of the particular Block in which the Flat is located with grace period of six (6) months, on receipt of sanction of building plans/revised building plans and approvals of all concerned authorities including the Fire Service Deptt., Civil Aviation Deptt., Traffic Deptt. Pollution Control Deptt., as may be required for commencing and carrying on construction subject to force majeure, restraints or restrictions from any courts/authorities, non-availability of building materials, disputes with contractors/work force etc. and circumstances beyond the control of the Developers and subject to timely payments by the Flat Buyers in the Scheme. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Developers in case of delay in handing over possession on account of any of said reasons. The date of submitting application to the concerned authorities for issue of completion/part completion/occupancy/part occupancy certificate of the Complex shall be treated as the date of completion of the Flat for the purpose of this clause/agreement/*Date of booking whichever is later”

As per Clause 10 (c) it was undertaken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to compensate the complainants, in case of delay in handing over possession of the unit, by making payment of Rs.53.80Ps. per square meter of the super area of the unit, per month. The complainants were offered construction linked payment plan. Detailed specifications of the material to be used and the articles to be provided in the said unit, were also annexed with the above Agreement. It is further case of the complainants that, as and when it was due, they kept on making the payment and by 11.04.2015, they had paid an amount of Rs.50,58,765.27Ps., vide receipts Annexures C-2 to C-27, in the following manner:-

Sr.No.	Date	Receipt No.	Amount in Rs.
	23.12.2010	20128	240000.00
	23.12.2010	20127	300000.00
	23.12.2010	20126	350000.00
	21.02.2011	20392	593490.00
	04.10.2011	21488	250000.00
	04.10.2011	21489	218397.00
	04.10.2011	21490	75000.00
	04.10.2011	21491	50000.00
	13.09.2012	24428	596375.00
	31.05.2012	23676	220000.00
	31.05.2012	23677	150000.00
	31.05.2012	23679	70000.00
	31.05.2012	23680	70000.00
	31.05.2012	23681	16375.65
	19.06.2012	23807	70000.00
	13.02.2013	25569	56375.65
	13.02.2013	25570	40000.00
	13.02.2013	25568	500000.00
	18.07.2013	S0122360	50000.00
	18.07.2013	S0122363	116375.00
	18.07.2013	S0122364	80000.00
	18.07.2013	S0122365	120000.00
	18.07.2013	S0122366	120000.00
	01.08.2013	S0122927	110000.00
	11.04.2015	S0132904	596376.00
		Total	50,58,765.27

 

It is positive case of the complainants that their visits to the site showed that construction of the tower in which the unit, in question, is located, was going on very slow and at the end, it was noticed that work has virtually stopped. Faced with the situation, they made request for refund of amount paid. However, when they failed to get any response, they failed this complaint.     

2.         On 12.12.2017, notice of this complaint was ordered to be served upon the opposite parties, for 19.01.2018. However, since opposite party no.4 was not served upon the address given in the complaint, as such, the complainants were directed to furnish its correct address. On 05.03.2018, last opportunity was given to the complainants, to furnish correct address of opposite party no.4, failing which, it was ordered that complaint against it, will be dismissed. On the said date, when still correct address of opposite party no.4 was not furnished by the complainants, as such, the complaint against it was deemed to have been dismissed.
3.         Joint reply was filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3. Sale of unit in question, to the complainants against price mentioned in the complaint was admitted. It was stated that the unit was booked on 23.12.2010, when first payment was made by the complainants. Execution of the Agreement on 03.02.2011 was also admitted. It was stated that the complainants were defaulters in making payment towards price of the said unit, on five occasions. It was asserted that, as a goodwill gesture, an amount of Rs.97,959/- payable against delayed interest, was waived off. It was asserted that construction work at the site was in progress, however, delay was caused due to global recession, as a result whereof, opposite parties no.1 to 3 suffered financial crunch, which was beyond their control. It was pleaded that the complainants were intimated that due to recession in market, construction work was delayed. Requisite compensation for delay in handing over possession of the unit, will be paid in terms of Clause 10 (c) of the Agreement, at the time of delivery of possession of the unit. It was stated that now the construction work is in full swing and is about to complete shortly. It was averred that it is a case of contract between the parties and the dispute can be settled by Civil Court only. It cannot be adjudicated by this Commission, under summary proceedings. It was further pleaded that infact the complainants were required to file a recovery suit, and not a consumer complaint before this Commission. It was averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant, to file a complaint before this Commission at Chandigarh. It was stated that time was not essence of the contract. Only promise was made to make an attempt to hand over possession of the unit within 24 months plus six months grace period, from the date of start of construction.
4.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5.         We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
6.         It is not in dispute that the  complainants purchased a flat in a project launched by the opposite parties no.1 to 3, for which they paid booking amount of Rs.8,90,000/- on 23.12.2010. Thereafter, more payments were made by them. It is also not in dispute that the Buyer’s Agreement was entered into between the parties on 03.02.2011. As per provisions of Clause 10 (a) possession of the constructed unit was to be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of start of construction plus six months grace period. Admittedly, till the time of filing this complaint, on 13.10.2017, possession of the unit was not even offered to the complainants. As and when demands were raised from them, payments were made and by the end of 11.04.2015, they had paid an amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps. out of total sale consideration of Rs.57.85 lacs. In the reply filed and also at the time of arguments, it is not denied that construction at the spot was not complete by the end of committed date i.e. 02.08.2013, when possession of the unit was to be delivered. Rather, in the year 2015, as per letter dated 14.07.2015 Annexure E (at page 32 of the file), it was intimated that possession will be delivered in the year December 2016. As stated above, possession of the unit was not delivered by the committed date or by December 2016 or even by the date when this complaint was filed.  Even at the time of arguments, no firm date was given, by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3, as to when possession of the unit is likely to be delivered to the complainants. It appears that delivery of possession of the unit will not be in sight, even in next one year ahead. In the written statement also, it has only been said that opposite parties no.1 to 3 are making efforts to complete the construction work, to handover possession of the unit, in shortest possible time but no exact date and time has been committed even now. Under above circumstances, it can safely be said that by making false promise and not delivering possession of the unit, which was booked as far as back in the year 2010, opposite parties no.1 to 3 are guilty of rendering deficient service and also in adopting unfair trade practice.
7.         Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 made an attempt to wriggle out of the situation by stating that construction could not be completed on account of global recession. It is very significant to mention here that once opposite parties no.1 to 3 have already received more than 85% of the sale consideration, towards the unit(s), from the allottee(s), then it does not lie in their mouth, that they faced extreme financial hardship, due to global meltdown in the market, as far as the project, in question, is concerned. It is not that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were, in the first instance, required to develop the project, by arranging funds out of their own sources, and, thereafter, the units were to be sold to the allottees, on future payment basis. Had this been the case of opposite parties no.1 to 3, only in those circumstances, the plea with regard to facing extreme financial hardship on account of global meltdown would have been considered to be correct, by this Commission.

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

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

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

                The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Opposite parties no.1 to 3, therefore, cannot take shelter under the garb of force majeure Clause of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. By making a misleading statement, that  possession of the unit, in question, would be delivered within a period of 30 months (24 months plus 6 months grace period), from the date of start of construction but on the other hand, by not abiding by the commitments made and at the same time, taking  a bald stand that time was not essence of the contract, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were not only deficient in providing service but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

8.         Now coming to the objection raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3, at the time of arguments also, regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and decide this complaint. It is stated that Agreement was signed at New Delhi. Even the flat is also situated at Panchkula, as such, no cause of action has accrued, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, to entertain and decide the instant complaint. It may be stated here that as per provisions of Section 17 of the Act, a complaint can be filed in a State Commission, within whose jurisdiction, some part of cause of action accrues to the complainants. Perusal of letter dated 13.02.2013 Annexure C-17 reveals that the complainants have handed over three cheques in the sum of Rs.56,375.65ps, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5 lacs, at Chandigarh Office of opposite parties no.1 to 3, and the same was acknowledged to be received by Parsvnath Developers Limited, SCO No.1, 1^st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Secondly, it is evident from application form Annexure B,  in respect of the said unit, placed on record by opposite parties no.1 to 3 themselves, that the same was signed at their Chandigarh Office on 23.12.2010. Above said facts clearly envisages that cause of action accrued to the complainants to file this complaint before this Commission, at Chandigarh.

                It is also necessary to refer to a case titled as Ravinder Kumar Bajaj Vs. Parsvnath Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 3  Ors., First Appeal No. 515 of 2016, decided by the National Commission on 23.08.2016. In that case, qua project launched by the builder/opposite parties (also opposite parties no.1 to 3 in this case), at Rajpura, a complaint was filed by Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bajaj, before this Commission. The said complaint was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, noting that only two payments were credited in the account of the opposite parties no.1 to 3, in a bank at Chandigarh. By noting that neither the Agreement was signed at Chandigarh, nor substantial payment was received by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 at Chandigarh, the complaint was dismissed by this Commission. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bajaj went in appeal before the National Commission, which was decided by it, vide order dated 23.08.2016, by noting that at one point of time, Company had a Branch Office at Chandigarh. Appeal was allowed by the National Commission, by observing as under:-

“Since in the Grounds of Appeal, a specific averment is made by the Appellant to the effect that in the year 2007, when the subject flat was booked, the Respondent Company did have a Branch office at Chandigarh, where the payments in respect of the project used to be received regularly, on a pointed query, learned Counsel appearing for the Company very fairly states, on instructions, that the stand of the Appellant is correct.

In light of the statement by learned Counsel for the Respondent Company, I am of the view that in the present case, the State Commission UT, Chandigarh has the Territorial Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Complaint filed by the Appellant.

Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the State Commission UT at Chandigarh for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.”

                Order passed by this Commission was set aside and the matter was remitted back for hearing the complaint, on merits. In Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bajaj case (supra), admittedly, only two payments were credited in bank account maintained by the opposite parties. Even then, it was held by the National Commission that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because at one time, a Branch Office was being maintained by the opposite parties in Chandigarh. In view of above, objection raised in this regard, stands rejected.

9.         Another objection was taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their written version, that consumer complaint was not maintainable before this Commission, under summary proceedings and only a suit, in the Civil Court was maintainable.

                It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the opposite parties no.1 to 3, for purchasing the unit, in the manner, referred to above. It is a simple case of non-delivery of possession of the unit, by the stipulated date or even till date, to the complainants, against which substantial amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps. towards sale consideration stood paid, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can also be availed of by them, as they fall, within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, objection taken by the opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

                The above objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 is also bereft of merit, in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, titled as M/s. Karwa Developers & 3 Ors. Vs. Shree Vinayak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & 3 Ors., First Appeal No. 980 of 2016,  decided on 3^rd  March, 2017, wherein, a similar plea of the builder was negated, while holding as under:-

“We also do not find any substance in the plea taken by the appellant that under clause 14(a) of the development agreement, the complainant was required to file a civil suit under the Specific Relief Act only, because they were asking for monetary relief.  The State Commission rightly stated that the relief sought in the complaint were on account of deficiencies committed by the OP Developers, vis-à-vis, the society.  Since there is a specific clause in the agreement for giving the possession of the flat within specific time frame and penalty has been provided if the developers failed to develop the same, the society was well within its rights to file consumer complaint against the OP builder.”

 

10.         Another objection raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 that since no fixed time was mentioned in the Agreement regarding handing over possession of the unit, to the complainants, as such, time was not the essence of contract, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, that possession of the unit was to be handed over within a period of 24 months plus 6 months i.e. total 30 months, of the commencement of construction work, subject to force majeure circumstances. In the instant case, opposite parties no.1 to 3 did not raise any force majeure circumstances, if any, encountered by them, except a bald one of global recession, which has been rejected by this Commission. Thus, under these circumstances, since as per Clause 10 (a) of the Agreement, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 30 months, referred to above, as such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract.

                At the same time, opposite parties no.1 to 3, also cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since no fixed time was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. Non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement/allotment letter, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the plots/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

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

In view of above, the plea of opposite parties no.1 to 3 in this regard also stands rejected.

11.         As far as the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that the complainants were defaulters in making payment towards price of the said unit, as a result whereof, reminders were sent to them on five occasions, as such they are not entitled to any relief, it may be stated here that we have gone through the record and found that it was only in the year 2013 that an amount of Rs.5,96,376/-, was due to be paid by the complainants, for which reminders were sent by opposite parties no.1 to 3. Ultimately, the said amount was also paid by the complainants. Except for this payment, there is nothing on record that the complainants ever stopped making payment, as a result whereof, any reminders were sent to them by opposite parties no.1 to 3. At the time of arguments, it was stated by Counsel for the complainants that the said amount was withheld by the complainants, when they saw that opposite parties no.1 to 3 are not serious in completing the construction and on the other hand, already substantial amount had been paid by them (complainants).  However, later on, the said amount was paid by them, on 11.04.2015, when opposite parties no.1 to 3, vide letter dated 30.01.2015 (at page 30 of the file), gave a threat of cancellation of the unit and forfeiture of earnest money.

                It may be stated here that it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to offer possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date or even as on today, as they could not complete the construction. Thus, if it is so, the complainants were well within their right, to withhold the said amount, in view of principle of law laid down in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser. Under these circumstances, plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

12.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps. It is an admitted fact that opposite parties no.1 to 3 are unable to offer and deliver possession of the unit, in question, which was booked as far as back in 2010 and still firm date of delivery of possession of the unit, could not be given to them (complainants). The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of actual physical possession of the unit purchased by them. Opposite parties no.1 to 3  therefore, had no right to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The complainants are thus, entitled to get refund of amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps.

                In view of above facts of the case, opposite parties no.1 to 3 are also under an obligation to compensate the complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

13.         It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the  complainants. The amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps. has been used by opposite parties no.1 to 3, for their own benefit. As on date even, the complainants are empty handed. There is no dispute that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were charging heavy rate of interest @24% p.a., as per Clause 5 (b) of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps. alongwith interest from the respective dates of deposits till realization.             
14.         Since, it has already been held that the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest and compensation, as such, the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the effect that they are ready to pay penalty amount for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the unit cannot be considered, at this stage. If opposite parties no.1 to 3 are allowed to invoke the relevant Clause of the Agreement, in the instant case, regarding payment of penalty, that would amount to enriching them, at the cost of the complainants. The defence taken is accordingly rejected.
15.         No other point was urged by Counsel for the contesting parties.       
16.         For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs, against opposite parties no.1 to 3. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.50,58,765.27ps. to  the  complainants, alongwith interest @12% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.
4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @15% p.a.,  instead of @12%, from the date of default onwards, and interest @12% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

17.         However, it is made clear that, if the complainants have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants).        
18.         Complaint against opposite party no.4 already stood dismissed, under the circumstances, explained above.      
19.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

18.05.2018

 

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Rg.