Chandigarh
StateCommission
CC/394/2017
Amarjit Singh Matharu - Complainant(s)
Versus
Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Narender Kaur, Adv.
14 Mar 2018
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Complaint case No. | : | 394 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 09.05.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.03.2018 |
Amarjit Singh Matharu s/o Lt. Sh. Piara Singh r/o H.No.1988, Phase-10, Mohali, Punjab.
……Complainant
V e r s u s
1. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Sarbari, New Delhi 110074 and Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India) through its Managing Director.
2. Anupam Nagalia, Director of Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).
3. Mr. Amrick Singh Gambhir, Director of Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).
….. Opposite Parties.
Argued by: Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties.
Complaint case No. | : | 475 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 08.06.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.03.2018 |
1. Ajay Sarin s/o Sh. Satish Chander Sarin,
2. Ms. Seema Sarin w/o Sh. Ajay Sarin,
Both R/o H.No.5512/2, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.
……Complainants.
V e r s u s
1. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Sarbari, New Delhi 110074 and Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India) through its Managing Director.
2. Anupam Nagalia, Director of Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).
3. Mr. Amrick Singh Gambhir, Director of Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).
….. Opposite Parties.
Argued by: Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties.
Complaint case No. | : | 484 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 13.06.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.03.2018 |
Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Khushwant Singh, resident of J-1809, Second Floor, C.R. Park, New Delhi – 110019, presently residing at H.No.1107, Sector-70, Mohali.
……Complainant
V e r s u s
1. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Sarbari, New Delhi 110074 and Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India) through its Managing Director.
2. Anupam Nagalia, Director of Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).
3. Mr. Amrick Singh Gambhir, Director of Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (An IREO Group Company), Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 (India).
….. Opposite Parties.
Argued by: Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties.
Complaint case No. | : | 486 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 14.06.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.03.2018 |
1. Nitesh Jain S/o Sh. Arun Jain
2. Smt. Sabina Jain W/o Sh. Nitesh Jain,
Both residents of #5180/3, Cat-1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigrh – 160101.
……Complainants.
V e r s u s
1. M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009 through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009 through its Director/s.
3. M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009 through its Authorized Signatory Ms. Sunaina Minhas, D/o Maj. Arbinder Minhas.
Second Address:-
Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi – 110074.
….. Opposite Parties.
Argued by:Sh. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties.
Complaint case No. | : | 566 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 25.07.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.03.2018 |
Atul Madan S/o Sh. Shiv Dyal Madan, aged about 41 years, R/o Flat No.D 701, Ganesh Aangan CHS, Thakur Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400101.
……Complainant.
V e r s u s
1. M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009 through its Director/s.
2. Sh. Anupam Nagalia, Director, M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009.
3. Sh. Amrick Singh, Director, M/s. Puma Realtors Private Limited, SCO No.6-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009.
Second Address:-
Registered Office at No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi – 110074.
….. Opposite Parties.
Argued by:Sh. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties.
Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
After hearing arguments on 01.03.2018, it was agreed between the Counsel for the complainant(s) and Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties that the facts involved in the above five complaints, by and large, are the same and therefore, the aforesaid complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order. To dictate order, facts are being taken from complaint bearing No.394 of 2017, titled as ‘Amarjit Singh Matharu Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited & Ors.’.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 21.12.2011, the complainant was allotted Apartment No.CCC-06-004, in Cassia Court C, measuring 1609 sq. ft. in the Group Housing Project of the Opposite Parties i.e. IREO RISE, vide allotment letter (Annexure C-1). The complainant paid an amount of Rs.52,18,605/- i.e. 95% as against the total sale consideration of the unit i.e. Rs.55,28,884/- and balance payment was to be paid by the complainant at the time of possession and registration of sale deed. Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was signed between the parties on 16.01.2012 (Annexure C-2).
3. As per Clause 13.3 of the aforesaid Agreement, physical possession of the unit, in question, was to be handed over by Opposite Parties within a period of 30 months from the date of execution of the same i.e. by 16.07.2014. It was further stated that for the delayed period in offering possession, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay penalty @Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. per month. It was further stated that the complainant also took loan of Rs.41,70,717/- @11% p.a. and is paying an EMI of Rs.39,985/- per month. The complainants approached Opposite Party No.1 a number of times to know about the status of delivery of possession of the flat but every time, Opposite Party No.1 failed to give any positive response.
4. It was stated that in July and November 2014, the complainant visited the site and was shocked to see that there was no development at the site and the question of delivery of possession did not arise at all. It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, has not been delivered by the Opposite Parties till date. Upon persistent demand raised by the Opposite Parties that with a fear of losing the flat, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.8,02,063/- on 29.12.2014 and Rs.24,038/- on 06.01.2015. Even in July 2015, there was no development at the site.
5. It was further stated that neither there was provision of electricity connection nor water connection was laid down. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to know that electricity shall be provided by the Opposite Parties at exorbitant price. It was further stated that even various amenities like solar water heating for kitchen, multipurpose hall, swimming pool, fully equipped Gym, badminton and basketball courts, kids play area, jogging tracks, visitors car parking, intercom facility and CCTV camera, which were promised in the Agreement, have not been started at the project site. It was further stated that Opposite Parties had promised to provide modular kitchen and admittedly, lower portion of the modular kitchen has been provided but the upper portion has not been provided. It was further stated that there is no provision for split ACs, which is in contradiction of the promised facilities. It was further stated that Opposite Parties for their convenience constructed approximately 70 flats over the existing tower thereby enriching itself by approximately 60/70 crores, which has caused lot of inconvenience to other allottees and such construction shall put burden upon the existing common facilities. It was further stated that the complainant is ready to deposit the remaining 5% amount as agreed between the parties, subject to handing over possession of the flat. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
6. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to hand over possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, with all amenities, within a period of three months; pay penalty as per Clause 13.4 of the Agreement; pay interest @15% on the deposited amount from respective dates of deposits; make provision for electricity, water and sewerage from the Government; pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.80,000/- as cost of litigation.
7. The Opposite Parties, in their written statement, took-up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are not personally liable for the acts of the Opposite Party No.1; that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, due to existence of arbitration Clause No.34 in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.01.2012; that since the present complaint related to enforcement of an agreement to sell/purchase of a residential apartment i.e. an immovable property and hence, was not covered under the Act; that neither the complainant bought any goods nor did he hire any services of the Opposite Parties, as the parties did not enter into any contract for hiring the services; that the complainant booked the flat not for his personal use but for investment/commercial purposes; that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction on account of existence of Clause 36 in the Agreement and that the relief claimed is beyond Section 14(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
8. On merits, the Opposite Parties, while admitting the factum of allotment of the unit, in question, in the name of the complainant and execution of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement on 16.01.2012, stated that total sale consideration price agreed to be paid by the complainant was Rs.51,86,170/-. It was further stated that the complainant was informed about the revised service tax vide letter dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure OP-5). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 gave permission to mortgage and entered into a Tripartite Agreement dated 15.03.2012 (Annexure OP-7). It was further stated that in terms of Clause 13.4 of the Agreement, the complainant duly agreed to receive liquidated damages from the end of the grace period i.e. 30 months plus 6 months, till possession is actually offered. It was further stated that the complainant vide Clause No.13.3 of the Agreement agreed that the starting period for 30 months shall be date of the said Agreement or approval of the building plans and/or fulfillment of precondition imposed thereunder, which ever was later. It was further stated that building plans were approved on 18.01.2012 (Annexure OP-11) and that being so, the starting period for 30 months would not be the date of the said Agreement but would be 18.01.2012.
9. It was further stated that as agreed between the parties, in case of failure of Opposite Party No.1 to deliver possession within aforesaid period of 36 months, the complainant was entitled to the liquidated damage @Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. per month till possession of the apartment is actually offered. It was further stated that the delay compensation @Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. of the super area was to be adjusted and reduced from the last and final installment, which would be demanded at the time of offer of possession. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 after development and construction of the unit, in question, has already been issued the partial completion certificate dated 30.06.2017 by the authorities qua five towers out of seven towers and accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 has started offering possession to respective allottees. It was further stated that qua remaining two towers, Opposite Party No.1 has applied for occupation certificate vide application dated 22.11.2016, which is likely to be granted soon. It was further stated that letter of offer of possession is likely to be issued to the complainant very soon.
10. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 vide application dated 26.11.2013 applied for approval of electrical layout plan and grant of NOC to the PSPCL after submitting requisite details; NOC by PSPCL was granted on 08.07.2015; approval for commissioning of electrical installations was accorded on 07.08.2015; Opposite Party No.1 applied for release of electric connection for IREO Rise project on 27.08.2015; PSPCL granted feasibility clearance dated 20.11.2015 for release of load/connection to the project and Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.3,24,10,301/- was submitted to PSPCL on 22.03.2016. The allegation that Opposite Party No.1 shall keep on supplying electricity at exorbitant rates was denied.
11. It was further stated that the complainant is misconstruing the bare simple language of letter dated 30.12.2015. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 is in progress of obtaining approvals for additional areas and duly agreed under Clauses 9.10 and 21.3 (in fact 10.10 and 22.3) of the Agreement that Opposite Party No.1 shall be entitled to make additional construction to the extent permitted by the competent authorities under the relevant laws. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
12. The complainant filed rejoinder, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
13. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
14. The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Rohit Tanwar, their Authorised Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
15. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
16. It is evident, on record, that vide provisional allotment offer letter dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure C-1), the complainant was allotted Apartment No.CCC-06-004 on Sixth Floor, Cassia Court – C Tower in the project of Opposite Parties i.e. “Ireo Rise”, situated in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali, having tentative super area of 1609 sq. ft. together with 1 no. parking space, forming indivisible part thereof and Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties on 16.01.2012 (Annexure C-2/OP-2). As per Annexure-IV, Payment Plan (at Page 144 of the written statement), the basic sale price of the unit was Rs.51,86,170/-. The total sale consideration of the unit, in question, as per aforesaid payment plan, including External Development Charges (EDC) Rs.1,60,900/-, IFMS charges Rs.48,270/- & service tax of Rs.1,33,544.00, is Rs.55,28,884.00. The payment against the aforesaid unit was to be regulated as per Payment Plan, Annexure IV. The complainant made payment in the sum of Rs.52,18,605.00 as is apparent from latest accounts statement (Annexure OP-6). In terms of Clause 13.3 of the Agreement, since building plans were approved on 18.01.2012, 30 months period for handing over possession, expired on 17.07.2014. Admittedly, possession of the unit has not been offered/delivered to the complainant till date. The Opposite Parties have specifically denied the allegation of supplying electricity at exorbitant rates.
17. The Opposite Parties, while filing their written statement, contended that Opposite Party No.1, being legal entity acts through its duly authorized signatories and Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, who are Directors of Opposite Party No.1, are not personally liable for the acts of Opposite Party No.1. It may be stated here that a Company acts through its Director(s). The fact of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, being Directors of the Company, has neither been disputed nor has it been pleaded that they are not the active Directors of the Company. In view of this, for failure of Opposite Party No.1, they (Opposite Parties No.2 & 3) are also equally responsible. The objection raised, thus, being not sustainable, stands rejected.
18. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause No.34 in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It may be stated here that this Commission in case titled ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, noted that litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. The complaint in the State Commission can be filed by making payment between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- only. Whereas, as per principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of arbitrator’s fee. As per mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is proposed to be decided within three months from the date of service of the other party. On the other hand, it is admissible to an Arbitrator to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it was observed that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, it would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act. Paras 26, 33 and 34 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-
“26. To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;
“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
33. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. As stated above, in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire life earnings to purchase the plot, in the said project, launched by the opposite party. However, his hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of the sale consideration, he failed to get possession of the plot, in question, in a developed project. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.
34. Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”
Same is the ratio of judgment of a three Judges Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, vide order dated 13.07.2017.
Against the aforesaid order passed by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited filed Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which were also dismissed.
In view of the above, the plea taken by the Opposite Parties, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
19. Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties was that since the complainant did not buy goods and did not hire any services, and was seeking enforcement of the Agreement in respect of immovable property, therefore, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 13.3 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to hand over possession of the apartment, in question, within a period of thirty months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) or approval of building plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions, whichever is later (commitment period). 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 Act provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the objection of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
20. The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to his. In the instant case, it is evident from Clause 33 of the Agreement, that the parties had agreed that “Hence this Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed at Chandigarh even if the Proposed Allottee has prior thereto executed this Agreement at any place(s) other than Chandigarh”, meaning thereby that the Agreement in question, was deemed to be signed/executed at Chandigarh. Not only this, provisional allotment letter dated 21.12.2011 (Anexure C-1), receipts (Annexures C-4 to C-10, C-12 & C-13), Demand Note (Annexure C-11) and letter dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure C-14) were issued by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant, from its Chandigarh Office i.e. SCO 6-7-8, 1st & 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Since, as per Clause 33 of the Agreement and the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.
21. No doubt, in the written version, an objection was also taken by the Opposite Parties, that as per Clause 36 of the Agreement, the Courts at Mohali and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.
22. In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to him, to file the complaint. The submission of Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
23. A specific objection, as regards the complainant being not a consumer as he booked the apartment not for his personal use but for investment/commercial purposes, has been taken. It may be stated here that in the opening paras 1 to 3 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that he is working with a private company and blessed with two sons and considering quality of life and facilities available in Chandigarh, he always wished to own a residential accommodation in the Tricity. The complainant has further averred that he does not own any residential accommodation/house/ flat in the tricity in his name. At the same time, there is nothing, on record, to show that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by him, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the complainant being investor, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. It may be stated here that in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-
“In the case of the purchase of the house which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. First Appeal No.1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. The objection raised, being devoid of any substance, stands rejected.
24. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the construction of approximately 70 flats over the existing tower(s) by the Opposite Parties is at the cost of existing common facilities/amenities and against the agreed terms and conditions. Relevant clauses 22.3 and 10.10 in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement read as under:-
“22.3 The Proposed Allottee agrees that the Company shall be entitled to connect the electric, water, sanitary and drainage fittings on any additional structures/storeyes with the existing electric, water, sanitary and drainage fittings. The Proposed Allottee further agrees and undertakes that it shall not at any time before or after taking possession of the said Apartment, have any right to object to the Company constructing or continuing with the construction of any other building(s)/ structures in IREO-RISE or putting up additional floors to any of the exiting towers/ Buildings in IREO-RISE or undertaking modification of any unsold apartment/units/ areas therein. The Proposed Allottee further agrees that it shall not claim any compensation or withhold the payment of maintenance and other charges, as and when demanded by the Company on the ground that the infrastructure required for IREO-RISE is not yet complete, or on any other ground whatsoever.
10.10 The Proposed Allottee hereby expressly agrees and consents that the Company shall have the absolute right to make additional construction, whether on account of increase in FAR or better utilization of the said Land or for any other reason anywhere in IREO-RISE, to the extent permissible by the government or the Competent Authority under the Act. The Company shall have the absolute and unfettered right to transfer such additional construction in any manner whatsoever as the Company may in its absolute discretion think fit. The Company and its transferees of such additional construction shall have the same rights as the Proposed Allottee with respect to IREO-RISE including the right to be member of the Society of Apartment Owners to be formed under the Apartment Act (“RWA”) and the right to use of the Common Areas and other common amenities of IREO-RISE.”
In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to agree with the Opposite Parties that construction of additional flats is in accordance with the specific provision in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. The objection of the complainant is, therefore, not tenable. The Opposite Parties are entitled to raise construction of additional flats in terms of provisions in the agreement.
25. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the Opposite Parties, by not providing Split AC fittings in all rooms including bedrooms and complete modular kitchen, were deficient in rendering service. As per Annexure I, the Opposite Parties were to make provision for Split AC and modular kitchen. The provision and specifications qua these two facilities, are mentioned in Annexure-I appended to the Agreement, at Pages 140 and 141 of the written statement. Admittedly, the provision in accordance with the specifications in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was not made. It was argued on behalf of the Opposite Parties that it was nowhere agreed that modular kitchen comprising both upper and lower cabinets/cupboards was to be provided, and that it was nowhere mentioned that portion above the working slab is a must for a modular kitchen. The plea, being devoid of merit, is not sustainable. When it is clearly mentioned that modular kitchen is to be provided, it would mean modular kitchen with cup-boards below and above the slab. The Opposite Parties have also failed to clarify, why the provision of Split AC fittings was not made in all the bedrooms and drawing & dining room. Thus, the Opposite Parties are liable to provide modular kitchen with cup-boards upper the slab also and so also the provision for split AC fittings in the bedrooms and drawing & dining room.
26. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether there is delay in delivering possession of apartment to the complainant. According to Clause 13.3 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of apartment, within a period of 30 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) or approval of building plans and/or fulfillment of the preconditions whichever is later (commitment period). The building plans were approved on 18.01.2012 as is evident from Annexure OP-11 i.e. after execution of Buyer’s Agreement on 16.01.2012. Computing 30 months from 18.01.2012, commitment period for handing over possession was up-to 17.07.2014. On account of force majeure circumstances, referred to above, the Opposite Parties were entitled to advantage of 180 days grace period after expiry of 30 months for unforeseen delays in obtaining the occupation certificate etc. No cogent evidence or justification for seeking advantage of 180 days grace period has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties. It is an admitted fact that possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainant, even either expiry of 180 days or after expiry of extended delay period of 12 months, or by the date of filing the instant complaint, or even till date, apparently for want of completion of unit/basic amenities at the site. The Opposite Parties have also failed to place on record, any cogent and convincing evidence that construction of the unit is going to be complete in the near future. The Opposite Parties were duty bound to hand over possession within the aforesaid period. Sh. Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties could not give any firm date, by which the Opposite parties would be handing over possession. It was also argued that considering the fact that complainants are seeking compensation under Clause 13.4, the due date for possession is to be taken as 30 months + 6 months i.e. 17.01.2015 and not 17.07.2014. It may be stated here that the complainants are not being granted any compensation under Clause 13.4 and the complainants while seeking compensation have not sought the same w.e.f. 17.01.2015. The plea being devoid of merit stands rejected. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within the period as discussed above, and by not abiding by the commitment made, they (Opposite Parties) were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. There is, thus, certainly inordinate delay in offering/delivering physical possession of the unit, in question.
27. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for delay in offering/delivering physical possession of the unit beyond the time stipulated in the Agreement. It may be stated here that in case titled Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing No.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-
“8. If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.
9. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:
(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.”
28. No doubt in the Buyer’s Agreement, some scope for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating the complainants for delay, but it does not mean that even in the event of inordinate delay, that too without justified reasons, in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainant would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. of super area, which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. If the argument of the Opposite Parties is to be accepted, it would lead to an absurd situation and would give an unfair advantage to the unscrupulous builder, who might utilize the consideration amount meant to finance the project, by the buyer, for its other business venture, at nominal interest of 3 to 4 per cent, as against much higher bank lending rates. This could never be the intention of legislation that if such a proposition is accepted, it would result in defeating the object of Consumer Protection Act.
29. Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the case, referred to above, award of interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay i.e. w.e.f. 18.07.2014 till delivery of possession of the unit, would meet the ends of justice.
30. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to him. In the complaint in hand, the complainant has specifically prayed for compensation of Rs.10 Lacs towards mental agony and physical harassment etc. caused to him, which is on the higher side. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, has still not been offered/delivered to the complainant. There has been inordinate delay in delivering possession of the unit, in question. Due to non delivery of possession by the stipulated date, the complainant has certainly suffered loss and underwent lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Considering the fact that price of the unit is escalation free and the complainant shall also get benefit of escalation in price, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in providing service, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, if granted, would be adequate to serve the ends of justice.
31. In four connected complaints bearing Nos.475, 484 486 and 486 of 2017, the possession of the unit(s), in question, has been offered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant(s) on 30.06.2017. The possession stands delivered to the complainants in complaint bearing No.486 of 2017 on 17.10.2017. The details of date of agreement, due date for possession, date on which possession offered, date of dispatch of possession letter, time given to the complainant(s) in possession letter to make payment and for completion/submission of documents, date on which possession taken and the date up-to which there is delay in delivering possession, are given in the following table:-
TABLE
COMPLAINT NO. | ||||
| 475/2017 | 484/2017 | 486/2017
| 566/2017
|
Date of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. | 21.03.2011 (2nd Allotee) 12.09.2011 | 09.03.2011 | 19.10.2011 | 19.10.2011 |
Date of approval of building plans. | 18.01.2012 | 18.01.2012 | 18.01.2012 | 18.01.2012 |
Due date for possession after 30 months from the date of Agreement or approval of building plans. | 18.07.2014 | 18.07.2014 | 18.07.2014 | 18.07.2014 |
Date on which possession offered. | 30.06.2017 | 30.06.2017 | 30.06.2017 | 30.06.2017 |
Date of dispatch of offer of possession letter dated 30.06.2017 | 21.07.2017 | 21.07.2017 | 21.07.2017 | 03.08.2017 |
Time given to the complainant(s) in offer of possession letter to make payment and for completion/ submission of documents/Time for final touches/finishing works. | 45 Days + 30 Days | 45 Days + 30 Days | 45 Days + 30 Days | 45 Days + 30 Days |
Delay in delivering possession would come up-to: | 15.10.2017 | 15.10.2017 | 15.10.2017 | 25.10.2017 |
Whether possession taken or not ? | No. | No. | Yes on 17.10.2017 | No |
Delayed compensation given: | Rs.2,75,575.50 | Rs.4,05,205.50 | Rs.3,49,107.00 | Rs.4,03,194.00 |
32. In the aforesaid four complaints, the building plans were approved on 18.01.2012 i.e. after execution of Buyer’s Agreement. Therefore, computing 30 months from 18.01.2012, commitment period for handing over possession was up-to 17.07.2014. In the offer of possession letter(s) dated 30.06.2017 (admittedly dispatched on 21.07.2017 in CC Nos.475, 484 & 486 of 2017 & 03.08.2017 in CC No.566 of 2017), the complainants were given 45 days’ time to make payment of the due amount(s) and for completion/submission of documents and upon the complainants doing so, the Opposite Parties were to take another 30 days for final touches/finishing works in the apartment(s). The said paras of the offer of possession letter(s) read thus:-
“We would like to inform you that upon receipt of the amounts due and on completion of the documentary formalities mentioned above, it will take us about 30 days from final touches/finishing works in your apartment.
You are requested to kindly make the payment of all amounts due and payable, if any, and complete all the documentary formalities within 45 days from the date of this Notice of Possession. Billing for maintenance charges shall commence from the expiry of 45 days from the date of this Notice of Possession or actual possession by the Apartment Buyer, whichever is earlier. In case there is a delay in handing over of the apartment, the said period of 30 days would stand extended to the date when the apartment is ready for handing over, after completion of final touches/finishing works. Any delay in taking possession of the Apartment shall be at your own risk and cost in terms of the Apartment Buyers Agreement.”
Thus, the delay in delivering possession, in these four cases, assuming that the complainant(s) received the possession letters on 31.07.2017 (in Complaints No.475, 484 & 486 of 2017) and 10.08.2017 (in Complaint No.566 of 2017), would come up-to 15.10.2017 (31.07.2017 + 45 days + 30 days) in CC No.475, 484 and 486 of 2017 & 25.10.2017 (10.08.2017 + 45 days + 30 days) in CC No.566 of 2017.
The possession in CC No.486 of 2017 stands delivered to the complainants on 17.10.2017.
33. When we look into the contents of the account statements in the aforesaid complaints viz.475, 484, 486 & 566 of 2017, no payment is due against the complainant(s) and in fact, amounts in the sum of Rs.25,405.08, Rs.52,892.97, Rs.10,695.91 and Rs.20,397.51 respectively, are payable to the complainant(s).
34. Further, in the aforesaid complaints viz.475, 484, 486 & 566 of 2017, since the Opposite Parties gave a credit of Rs.2,75,575.50, Rs.4,05,205.50, Rs.3,49,107.00 and Rs.4,03,194.00 respectively on account of delayed compensation, this amount shall be reduced from the compensation amount arrived at by granting 12% interest on the deposited amount(s) for the delay period.
35. In these cases, the complainants are also held entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in providing service, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case.
36. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
37. For the reasons, recorded above, all the complaints bearing Nos.394, 475, 484, 486 & 566, all of 2017, are partly accepted with costs.
Complaint No.394 of 2017
38. The Opposite Parties are, held liable and, jointly and severally, directed as under:-
(i) To hand over physical possession of the unit, allotted in favour of the complainant, complete in all respects, including modular kitchen with cupboards above the slab also and provision for Split AC fittings in all bedrooms, drawing & dining room, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount, if any, legally due against the complainant and submission of required documents.
(ii) To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, within one month from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration charges and stamp duty etc. by the complainant.
(iii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from 18.07.2014 to 31.03.2018, [w.e.f. 18.07.2014 in respect of deposits made up-to 18.07.2014 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 18.07.2014], 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 i.e. after expiry of 45 days, till realization.
(iv) To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, to the complainant w.e.f. 01.04.2018, 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.
(v) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
Complaints No.475, 484 and 566 of 2017
39. The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases, are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-
(i) To hand over physical possession of the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, including modular kitchen with cupboards above the slab also and provision for Split AC fittings in all bedrooms, drawing & dining room, to the complainants, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on submission of required documents.
(ii) To execute and get registered the sale deed(s), in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration charges and stamp duty etc. by the complainant(s).
(iii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s), from 18.07.2014 to 15.10.2017 in CC No.475 & 484 of 2017 and from 18.07.2014 to 25.10.2017 in CC No.566 of 2017, [w.e.f. 18.07.2014 in respect of deposits made up-to 18.07.2014 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 18.07.2014], within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default till realization.
In these complaints, a sum of Rs.2,75,575.50, Rs.4,05,205.50 & Rs.4,03,194.00, credit for which, has been given on account of delay compensation, shall be deducted from the compensation amount arrived at by way of interest @12% for delay period.
(iv) Further for failure of Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of submission of documents by the complainant(s), for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount(s) for each month, till possession is delivered, shall be payable by 10th of the following month and failure shall entail penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.
(v) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in each case, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant(s), and Rs.35,000/-, in each case, as cost of litigation, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.
Complaint Case No.486 of 2017.
40. In this case, the possession of the unit stands delivered to the complainants on 17.10.2017 as stated by Counsel for the complainants in zimini order dated 05.02.2018. The Opposite parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-
- To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of registration charges and stamp duty etc. by the complainants.
(ii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount(s), to the complainants, from 18.07.2014 to 16.10.2017, [w.e.f. 18.07.2014 in respect of deposits made up-to 18.07.2014 and from respective dates of deposits in respect of amount(s) paid after 18.07.2014], 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.
In this complaint, a sum of Rs.3,49,107.00, credit for which, has been given on account of delay compensation, shall be deducted from the compensation amount arrived at by way of interest @12% for delay period.
(iii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainants, and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the complainants, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
41. Certified Copy of this order be placed in the file of connected complaints bearing Nos.475, 484, 486 and 566, all of 2017.
42. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
43. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
14.03.2018.
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
(DEV RAJ)
MEMBER
(PADMA PANDEY)
MEMBER
Ad
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.