JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

 1.           This common order shall decide the eights revision petitions detailed  above  which  entail  similar facts and questions of law.  We will  take up  the facts  of  the  case   from  the Revision Petition No.1601 of 2014.

2.      All the complainants got lured by the advertisement dated 07.12.2003 published in the Hindustan Times, Chandigarh,    Annexure-  CD1,  for construction of  Phase-3  at  Zirakpur by M/s. New Generation  Real  Estate  Pvt. Ltd., the OP1.  The advertisements also mentioned that it was a Punjab Government approved project, brochures / prospectus of Phase-III Apartments were also issued.  It  was  represented that the Town Planning Scheme had  been  duly  sanctioned by  the  Punjab  Government vide Government  Notification  dated  04.08.2001.  The  advertisement also mentioned  that there would be a Community Centre  and  a  lush  green belt to eclipse the ugly sight  of railway track  and to get a better  look  of  Shivalik  Hills.  The buyers were also informed that there would be a single-storyed  small group of shops where the outsiders would not be able to enter.

3.      Enamored by all these assurances, all the complainants purchased  different  apartments.   Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana,  the complainant in this case  paid an amount of ₹ 40,000/- towards booking in  respect  of  apartment  No.449, Second Floor Block-M.  The said apartment was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 03.03.2004/22.10.2003, Ex.CD-3.  Subsequently, buyers  agreement  dated  22.12.2003, Annexure CD-5  was also executed between the parties.  However, Mr. R.M.Singhla, the Director of  OP1  informed the complainant that  the initial plan of complex is slightly changed / amended, which was sent  for necessary sanction to the competent authorities.  He promised that the revised sanction plan would be shown  to  the allottees.  On 02.03.2007, vide letter , Annexure A-2, the allottees were further  informed  that a sum of ₹ 10,000/- would have  to  be paid over and above the cost of apartment and car parking space  at  the time of  taking  over possession of the apartment  in  December, 2004.   No maintenance  charges  were to be paid by the allottees till the execution of the Conveyance Deed.

4.      The  allottees  paid  the entire amount and took the possession of the apartments  vide possession letter  marked as OP6. Maintenance of the colony was handed over to the SS Maintenance Agency,  Zirakpur, w.e.f. January, 2005.  The complainant was requested  to pay ₹ 12,000/- as advance.  While taking the possession,  many  defects  were  pointed  out.  The Conveyance Deed was not  yet executed.  In the advertisement, it was stated “Abode for the Elite”.  It was pointed out that it was merely a propaganda.  However,  amenities, essential  services and entire amenities  were  not granted.  There were other various defects pointed  out  in the complaint.  It is alleged that the attention of the OP1 was  totally  focused  on  the  construction work in Phase –IV and,  therefore,  OP1 completely  ignored the pending  works in Phase-III.

 5.      In fact,  in  the  year  2004, the construction activity was started  in  Phase-IV apartments.  In  the brochure meant for Phase-III, there was an attractive and  magnificent entrance from NH-22.  There was an outer   attractive  gate followed by a road having  a small beautiful park.  Out  of  blue,  the  construction activity  started  near the internal gate  in  pocket V.  There  was  basement digging at a  place where the Company had projected a community hall. However, the construction activity in Phase-V was not for community centre.  The complainant came to know that Pocket V was going to be a multi-storyed  flats  as basement + 5  floors  and  basement + 6 floors.  It also transpired that there was no approval from the Punjab Government with regard to construction in Phase-V.  There was no cleanliness  and  the  unhygienic  conditions made the complainant and  his  family  members  sick.  The magnificent  entrance  as shown in the  brochure  was  totally  defaced by OP1.  The  area  earmarked for commercial complex for the residents of New Generation Apartments was turned into a small shopping complex meant for  outside  public as well.  The OP1 charged ₹ 60,000/- for the car parking space,  but  the  same  was  insufficient.  The  Registered  Sale Deed was not executed, the occupation certificate was not obtained.   Consequently,  the  present  complaint (556 of 2008)   was  filed  before  the District Forum.  It may be mentioned here that  the complaint  filed  by the complainant runs into 52 pages in this summary  trial  case.  The prayer is loosely drafted.  The namby pamby pleas are difficult to understand.

6.      It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  complainants  are  not represented  by  any Advocate.  The prayer clause runs into 10 pages.  Succinctly stated,  the  relief  claimed before the District Forum are these.

7.      Opposite parties should be directed to execute the sale deeds/conveyance deeds.  Adequate parking space be allotted to the complainants.  The OPs should be burdened with Rs. 2,00,000/- to having  compelled  the  complainant  and  his  family to live under slum-like conditions  for over one and a half years.  Due to lack of common facilities, the allottees were compelled to hold functions outside the New Generation Complex i.e. in Hotel Pallavi and Hotel Prabhat in Panchkula for the celebration of the marriages of their children as well as other functions.  Under these circumstances, the OP is not entitled  to charge maintenance.  OP  should be directed to (i) Removal of  accumulated debris all over, (ii) Patching the pit-holes in damaged roads, (iii) Worn-out DG set, (iv) ill-equipped and ill-maintained lifts and their control-panels with insufficient back-up and (v) Making arrangements for to avoid rain-water entering the car-parking basements.  The OP should be directed to prepare good quality roads  and  to  convert  all Kacha  areas into proper green areas or areas developed  otherwise.  Even after completing the Phase –V , the allotees are  compelled to live under arduous conditions of inordinate common facilities.  Further compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- should be granted.  Since the Magnificent Entrance has been defaced,  therefore, the complainants are entitled to compensation of  Rs. 2,00,000/- only.  The petitioner be directed to pay back Rs.1600/-  against  the fan regulator switches not provided by the Company, Rs.600/- against two water taps left un-provided in the two  balconies, Rs.15,000/- to enable the complainant to get proper sized grills provided in the flat.  Rs. 10,000/- taken under pressure be returned with 20% interest  w.e.f. 01.07.2005  to the complainant.  They be directed to give full facilities.  The OP be directed  to  pay  Rs.5,000/- per month,  till the Company completes and streamlines everything.

8.      The  OP  contested  this case.  It  contended that this complaint is not maintainable because the  complainant  had  filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13667 of 2005 in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was dismissed in limine, vide order dated 01.09.2005.  The case is barred by time.  The  Hon’ble  High Court of Pb. & Haryana in the above said  Writ  had  conducted an enquiry from the Principal Secretary to Government of Chandigarh that report dated 28.10.2005 did not go in favour of  the complainants. It is explained that Opposite Party No.1 has  developed  a  duly  sanctioned, approved  and  sanctioned  project,  under  the Town Planning Scheme of  the  Punjab  Government, vide Notification No. 04.08.2001, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.  The  other  allegations have been denied.  The construction was raised as per  the  drawings   approved  by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur and there was no violation of any of the plans.  The maintenance charges were paid as per the agreement.

9.      The District  Forum  partly  allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

“i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, as

compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

ii) OP No. 1 shall get executed the sale deed/ conveyance deed in favour of this complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, for which, the stamp registration and other incidental charges would be borne by the complainant.  If the complainant refuses to get the sale deed executed and registered, he would be doing so at his own risk and responsibility.

iii) OP No. 1 shall furnish the completion and occupation certificate of the apartment to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iv)  OP No. 1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the Complainant.”

10.    Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was preferred before the State Commission by the Opposite Party No.1.  It is note-worthy that the  complainants  did  not challenge this order.  The State Commission modified the above said order:-

  “For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed, with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is modified, and the appellant/opposite party No. 1, is directed as under:-

1. To pay a sum of  Rs.1.50 lacs, as compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice by it (opposite party No. 1), instead of Rs.2.50 lacs, awarded by the District Forum, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
2. To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. To execute sale deed/conveyance deed and get the same registered, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of completion and occupation certificates, on payment of stamp duty, registration fee, and other incidental charges, by respondent no. 1/complainant.
4. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
5. The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non-compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, opposite party No. 1 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.
6. In case, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 40 above, is not paid, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then it shall carry interest @9% p.a. form the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, and compliance of other directions, indicated above.
7. Any other direction, given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, or in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside”.

11.    Similar orders were passed in other cases with the following variations:-

(A) RP No. 1602 of 2014- Prem Lata   & 2 Ors..

          In  this case,  the  District  Forum  awarded  a sum of Rs.2 lakh as compensation along with costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The  State  Commission modified  the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs.1,50,000/-.  The State Commission did not disturb the finding regarding litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-

(B) RP No. 1603 OF 2014-Mrs. Veena Kapoor & Anr.

          In this case, the District Forum granted a sum of Rs.2 lakh as compensation alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The State Commission  modified  the  order of the District Forum  by  reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs.1,50,000/-.  The  State Commission did not disturb the finding regarding litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-

(C) RP No. 1604 of 2014-Kamal Arora & Anr.

          In this case, the District Forum granted a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as compensation along with costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The  State  Commission modified  the order of the District  Forum  by reducing  the  amount   of  compensation     from Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs.1,50,000/-.  The State Commission did not  disturb the litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.

(D) RP No. 1605 of 2014-Ikbal Krishan Kapoor & Ors.

In this case, the District Forum granted a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as compensation along with costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The  State  Commission  modified the order of the District Forum  by  reducing  the amount  of  compensation from       Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs.1,50,000/-.  The  litigation charges in the sum of Rs.10,000/- were upheld.

(E) RP No. 1621 of 2014-Ramesh Chander Bawa & Ors.

In this case, the District Forum granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation along with costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum to this extent.

(F) RP NO. 1622 of 2014-Bharat Bhushan Bawa & Ors.       

In this case, the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation along with costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The State  Commission  modified  the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs.1,50,000/-.  The litigation charges remained intact.

(G)RP No. 1623 of 2014-M. K. Jinsi & Ors.

In  this  case, the  District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation along with costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum to this extent.

12.    These  Revision  Petitions  were filed by the Opposite Party No.1.  At  the  very outset,  the  counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are  ready  to Execute the sale deeds.  He explained that sale deeds to  a  few allottees have already been executed.  He  alleged  that the  complainants are not approaching them for getting the sale deed executed.

13.    It  is,  therefore,  ordered  that  the complainants will approach the petitioner/OP,  who  will execute the sale deed or conveyance deed and get the same  registered in favour of the complainants, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complainants will pay the stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges.  To make the things easier for both the parties, after  receipt  of  this  order  the complainant  would give a notice to the OP-1 that they  would  be  depositing all the above said charges i.e. the  stamp  duty,  etc.,  and they would execute the sale deed within 7 days.  If, there is any fault on the part of the OP, they will be liable to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day till the sale deed is executed.  It was also  brought  to  our  notice  that  as  a matter of fact, Smt. Prem Lata, the complainant  has  transferred the apartment to  some third-party and the sale deed  was  executed  in  the  name  of transferee.  It, therefore, means that Smt. Prem Lata has suppressed the facts.  She has not come to the Court with clean hands.  She  has  been wasting  our  time for the reasons best known to her.

14.    Secondly,  the  complainants  did not challenge either the orders of the District Forum or  that  of  State Commission.  They  did  not   file first appeal or cross appeal against the orders rendered by the State Commission.  The other findings rendered by the State Commission were  not  called  for  consideration  by  the counsel for the petitioners.

15.    The deficiency on the part of the OPs already stands proved.  The  flats  were given  to the  complainants  in December, 2004.  There is  an  inordinate  delay in  executing  the  sale deeds.  Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it  is  also justice circumvented, justice mocked  and  the  system  of  justice  undermined.  The  period of ten years’  time is not  a small  time.  It  is  also  apparent that the promises made in the advertisement do not match with the construction.  It is difficult to fathom why the site plan was amended and that too, without  the  consent  of  the allottees. This is the arbitrary  and  arrogant  action on the part of the OP-1.  The purpose of Law is to prevent  the  strong  always having their way.

16.    This is a settled  Law  that  the complainants have got continuous cause of action till  the sale deed is executed.  By no stretch of imagination  it  can be  said  that  the  case  is barred by time.  The State Commission  has referred to “Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr. [AIR 1999 SC 380]”  and “Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC)”, to buttress its judgment.

17.    We have come across two latest pronouncements of Law.  In case of “Bhagyalaxmi Constn. Vs. Monoranjan Basak & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 28910 of 2013, wherein the order passed by this Commission  that  “until  or  unless  sale deed is executed, the cause of action  continues”, was upheld by the apex court.  In another authority  passed  by  this  Bench in  the case of “Raghava Estates Ltd. Vs. Vishnupuram Colony  Welfare Association” in Revision Petition No. 3097 of 2012 decided on 04.09.2012, took the similar view.  The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 35805 of 2012, was dismissed in limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18.    The  second  complaint  was  filed after seeking permission of the Court.  Consequently, this complaint cannot be held to be as barred by time.  The State Commission has found that the petitioner has given a mis-leading  advertisement. The gullible allottees were taken for a ride.

19.    Now,  we come to the compensation part.  It is quite clear that the compensation  granted  by the District Forum was quite reasonable, just and adequate.  The compensation granted by the State Commission is wee bit on the lower side.  The complainants have given a  list  of  deficiencies,  which  cannot be rectified by a mere amount  of  Rs. 1,50,000/-.  However, the other party has not filed the cross appeal.

20.    Keeping  in view  all  the facts and circumstances, we dismiss the petitioners’  revision  petitions  subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each,   for further  harassment,  mental  agony,   disappointment, anger and wastage of time.  The petitioners are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each  of  the  complainants,  within  45 days of the receipt of the copy  of  this  order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.  The order  of  the  State  Commission also be complied with.  The entire order, except clause (ii), (iii) & (v), be strictly complied with.

21.    It is also made clear that the allottees are entitled to all the facilities mentioned in the agreement, e.g., agreement entered into with Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana dated 22.10.2003 and the advertisement, placed on the record as Ex.CD-1 and the brochure,  placed  on the record.  All  these  facilities/amenities   become  part of this  decree.  The  petitioners  are given time to make arrangements for all these facilities/civil amenities, including Community Centre, Commercial  Complex/ Market, Park, reasonable Car Parking, Entrance Gate,  etc., as stated in the above said documents, within a period of six months’ from today, otherwise, it will form part of the decree and the same shall stand executable,  before the executing court, i.e., the District Forum.  If the above said works are  not  accomplished, within  a period of six months’, it will carry Rs.10,000/- as penalty per month, till it is accomplished.