Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/237/2015

Gurlal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar, Varun Bhardwaj, Adv.

23 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	237 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	09.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.05.2016

 

Gurlal Singh, Aged 57 years, son of Sh. Hardev Singh, resident of House No.22, VPO, Teliwala, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

……Complainant.

Versus

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, Satbari, New Delhi-110074, and Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160009 (India) through its Managing Director.
2. The Managing Director, 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, Satbari, New Delhi-110074, and Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160009 (India).

(Name of Opposite Party No.2 deleted vide order dated 06.11.2015).

….Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh.  Varun Bhardwaj,  Advocate  for  the complainant.

Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Name of Opposite Party No.2 deleted vide order dated 06.11.2015.

Consumer Complaint	:	25 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.05.2016

 

Pankaj Mahajan S/o Sh. Yashpal Mahajan

Correspondence Address:- R/o 97/3, Dharampura Colony, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

……Complainant.

Versus

M/s. 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 Floors, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009 (India) through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.

….Opposite Party.

Argued by:

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	75 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.05.2016

 

Gaurav Bhatia S/o Sh. S. K. Bhatia, R/ H.No.1072, Phase-10, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

 

……Complainant.

 

Versus

1. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at A-11, 1^st Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi – 110049 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.6-8, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009, through its Vice President.

….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.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. S. S. Hira, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of three complaints bearing No.237/2015, 25/2016 and 75/2016, referred to above. Since the facts involved in the three complaints are almost identical, the facts are being culled from complaint case No.237 of 2015 titled as ‘Sh. Gurlal Singh Vs. M/s PUMA Realtors Private Limited & Another’.

2.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for a residential plot in the project of Opposite Party No.1, namely ‘IREO Hamlet’, for his personal use and for use of his family members, total cost whereof was Rs.76,94,250/-. Initially, the complainant paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the Opposite Parties vide receipt dated 07.07.2011. Vide provisional allotment letter dated 06.07.2011, the complainant was allotted Plot No.280, measuring 307.77 Sq. Yards in the said project in Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties on 25.08.2011 at Chandigarh. In all, till 3.6.2015, the complainant made payment of various instalments as per demand raised by Opposite Party No.1 as under:-

Sr. No.	Mode of Payment	Exhibit Receipt No./Date	Amount deposited (Rs.)
1.	Cheque No.001315 dt. 20.7.2011	C-1 12080358/7.7.11	6,50,000.00
2.	Cheque No.486976 dt. 04.08.2011	C-5 12080610/18.8.11	5,04,138.00
3.	RTGS ORBCH11277063997 dt. 04.10.2011	C-9 12080780/4.10.11	12,90,718.00
4.	RTGS UTIBH13207030455 dt. 26.07.2013	C-10 14100506/26.7.13	12,95,475.00
5.	RTGS UTIBR52014062300002950-GU dt. 23.06.2014	C-11 15100471/23.6.14	12,95,470.00
6.	RTGS UTIBR52015012200026-GU dt. 22.01.2015	C-12 15101747/22.1.15	20,64,800.00
7.	RTGS UTIBR52015060300014980 dt. 03.06.2015	C-13 03.06.2015	12,61,956.00
TOTAL			83,62,557.00

 

 

As per clause 21.2 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to carry out internal developments by laying roads, water lines, sewer lines and electrical lines etc. Further as per Clause 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Agreement, possession of allotted plot was to be handed over by the Opposite Parties within a period of 42 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. The Opposite Parties sent letter dated 26.09.2011, with regard to change of payment plan from Time Linked Payment Plan to Development Linked Plan.

3.         The complainant visited the spot in November, 2014 as also in April, 2015 and found that there was no development at the site. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties very cleverly issued letter dated 06.05.2015 regarding offer of possession to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties themselves admitted in letter dated 29.06.2015 that there were no basic amenities at the site. It was further stated that the acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

4.         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) claiming refund of Rs.83,62,557/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the respective dates of deposits, Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

5.         Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, took-up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, due to existence of arbitration Clause No.33 in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 25.08.2011; that the complainant was not a consumer as the present complaint related to the enforcement of agreement to sell/purchase of a residential plot i.e. an immoveable property and hence was not covered under the Act; that the complainant did not hire any services of Opposite Party No.1, as the parties did not enter into any contract for hiring the services; that the complainant did not book the plot for his personal use but for investment/commercial purpose; that the allegations in the complaint being of contractual nature, were only triable by the Civil Court and that the complainant is not a consumer as he did not buy any goods.

6.         On merits, it was admitted that the complainant applied for residential plot in the project of Opposite Party No.1. It was denied that Rs.76,94,250/- was agreed as the total cost of the plot. It was further stated that the period of handing over of the plot was subject to the complainant complying with all his obligations under the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that it was not agreed that possession was to be offered after expiry of 42 months from the date of Agreement. On the contrary, it was agreed vide Clause 11.1 of the Agreement that the complainant shall punctually pay the due installments in time and further, if Opposite Party No.1 did not offer possession on expiry of grace period (30 months), Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay compensation @50/- per sq. yard per month till actual date fixed for handing over of possession. It was further stated that the complainant never opted for termination of allotment before dispatch of notice of possession dated 06.05.2015. It was further stated that the complainant made several defaults and made long delay in making payment of due installments. It was further stated that the delay in making payment of due installments by the complainant like other allottees, hampered the smooth development  of the project in a timely manner, for which, demand notices/reminders (Annexures OP-18 to OP-37) were sent to him. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 never charged a single rupee towards the delayed interest till date.

7.         It was further stated that development work commenced on site w.e.f. 01.05.2013. It was further stated that notice of possession stood issued to the allottees including the complainant in May 2015. It was further stated that all basic amenities/facilities for handing over a plot in a plotted colony, were in existence at the site at the time of offer of possession on 06.05.2015. It was further stated that all the lines including but not limited to sewer lines, electrical lines, water lines, rain harvesting lines have been laid underground and are not visible from the surface of the earth. However, installation of electrical transformer, electrical feeders, street lights, bore pump, roads, foot paths, entry gate, green parks, road gullies, rain harvesting pits, water hydrants etc. are clearly visible on site being situated on the surface of the earth. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 has already installed the STP and the same is fully functional. Electricity Line has already been provided by PSCPL upto the project of Opposite Party No.1 and temporary connection has already been released. It was further stated the development work as per Clause 21.2 of the Agreement at the site was completed before offer of possession to the complainant and a certificate to this extent was issued by Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Bhatia, Project-In-Charge. It was further stated that even the report of Local Commissioner filed in complaint titled ‘Abha Arora Vs. PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd. And another’, bearing No.170 of 2015, clearly unveils the false allegations made by the complainant.

8.         It was further stated that the completion certificate has been granted under the provisions of Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short ‘PAPRA 1995’) and Opposite Party No.1 has been granted exemption from all the provisions of the PAPRA 1995 by the Punjab Govt. vide notification dated 14.08.2008 except the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

9.         On 06.11.2015, after causing appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate stated that as on date, there was no Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 – Company. In view of his statement, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 06.11.2015.

10.       The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

11.       Opposite Party No.1, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Rajneesh, its Authorised Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

12.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

13.       It is evident, on record, that the complainant vide provisional allotment letter dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure C-3) was allotted Plot No.280 in the residential project “IREO Hamlet” admeasuring 307.77 sq. yard, Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali, the basic sale price whereof was Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard besides External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1,275.10 per sq. yard, Preferential Location Charges (PLC) @Rs.500/- per sq. yard and IFMS charges @Rs.350/- per sq. yard. Admittedly, Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 on 25.08.2011 (Exhibit C-6). The payment against the aforesaid plot    was to be regulated as per payment plan, Annexure A (Exhibit C-4, at Page 19 of the file). Against the total price of Rs.83,58,292/-, which included External Development Charges,  Preferential Location Charges    and IFMS Charges, the complainant made payment in the sum of Rs.83,62,557/-, up-to 03.06.2015. It is also evident that Opposite Party No.1 offered change of payment plan from Time Linked Payment Plan to the Development Linked Payment Plan vide letter dated 26.09.2011 and the complainant did not raise any objection, to the same. As admitted by Opposite Party No.1, the development work started at the site only on 01.05.2013. Thus, the development started, almost two years after the execution of Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 25.08.2011. The instant complaint was filed on 09.10.2015 and possession was offered on 06.05.2015 i.e. before filing of the complaint. The case of complainant is that possession offered was without complete development and basic amenities and the Opposite Party did not have all the approvals when possession was offered.

14.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Act (in short 1996 Act), this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, this Commission elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha’s case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra), this Commission in Para 19 held as under:-

“19. It was specifically observed that even in those cases, where two different redressal Agencies/Acts, have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. Taking note of a weak position, in which a consumer is set against multinational companies and other big producers, it was said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),that, where there is any ambiguity in understanding the meaning of provision of law, or where two interpretations are possible, one beneficial to the consumer should be accepted. The same view was reiterated in LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC).”

 

This Commission after dealing with the unamended/amended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 3 of 1986 Act, and in view of law      laid down in judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court        of India in case titled National Seeds Corporation      Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy  &  anr., I (2012)     CPJ 1 (SC) and Rosedale Developers Private         Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013 and judgments of National Commission in DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013; Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited’s & Ors., Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 (alongwith other 23 connected cases) decided on 8.6.2015 and Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors., First Appeal No. 127 of 2016, decided on 18.03.2016, came to the conclusion that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also by the National Commission in a large number of cases, Section 3 of 1986 Act provides for an additional remedy available to a consumer and the said remedy is  also not in derogation to any other Act. Further the remedy under the 1986 Act is cost effective and  much  speedier  than  the  proceedings  before the

Arbitrator. Referring the matter to the Arbitrator would defeat the very purpose of General Assembly Resolution No.39/248 and the provisions of 1986 Act and in view of above, the plea raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (in that case), was rejected. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission in Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, consumer complaint No.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016, by further holding as under:-

“20. 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. In the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase a unit, in a housing project, launched by the opposite party. It was their hope that they will live therein. However, their hopes were shattered, when despite making payment of entire amount towards price, they failed to get possession of a unit, in a developed project. As per established ratio of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and also in the judgment of 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), it was said that the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer 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.

21. In view of the above, the argument raised by Counsel for the opposite party 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”.

 

Further this Commission in case titled ‘Sukhjinder Singh Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd.’, Complaint Case No.278 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2016, held as under:-

“Not only as above, execution of judgment/decree passed by the Consumer Foras is very easy and less time consuming. Invariably, in all the judgments passed, between one to three months’ time, is granted to the judgment debtors(s) to discharge liability. If it is not so done, and the order is not stayed in the meantime by the Higher Fora, two options are available with the complainant/decree holder. Section 25 of 1986 Act provides the procedure to enforce orders by the Consumer Foras. In Sector 25 (3), it is provided that where any amount is due from any person, under an order passed by any Consumer Fora, the concerned Consumer Fora, on an application moved by the decree holder, may issue a certificate to the Collector of the District, to recover the said amount, by way of land revenue, in terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The said provision is also very stringent. The Collector is supposed to attach the holding of the judgment debtors to take the said property under his own management and control. The Collector is further supposed to manage the said property and raise all rents and profits accruing therefrom to the exclusion of the defaulter, until the decree is satisfied. The above procedure will consume at the maximum four to six months, for realization of the amount awarded. Further option is also available to a complainant/decree holder, to move an application under Section 27 of 1986 Act, which provides that where a trader or a person against whom, a complaint was made, fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Fora, such party would entail award of punishment of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one month, but may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and may be extended upto Rs.10,000/-, or both. This provision is very effective, as and when application is moved under Section 27 of 1986 Act, for fear of imprisonment, it is seen that immediately the judgment debtor(s) make an attempt to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Foras. Whereas, to the contrary Section 36 of 1996 Act, provides that award shall be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner, as if it was a decree of a Court. Such a procedure is very costly and time consuming. Executing a decree would virtually mean fighting one more litigation, in a Court, to get enforcement of the award. If such a procedure is adopted, it will defeat the very purpose and spirit of 1986 Act. Accordingly, in this view of the matter and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected.”   

 

In Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“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 andNational 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.”

 

 

            In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, , the arguments raised by Counsel for Opposite Party no.1, stand rejected.

15.       To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by Opposite Party No.1 was that the complainant, being investor, had purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate and, as such, it would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of 1986 Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainant is a property   dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by Opposite Party No.1, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held 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. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the flat, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs  Nirmala Devi Gupta,  Revision Petition No. 3861 of 2014, decided on 26.08.2015. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by Opposite Party No.1, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

16.       Another objection raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 was that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Agreement, in respect of the immoveable property, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of Opposite Party No.1, for purchasing the plot, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of Opposite Party No.1, it was to  hand over possession of the plot, in question, within a period of thirty months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). 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”

 

17.       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, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit, for specific performance, 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 a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the objection of Opposite Party No.1, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

18.       The next objection, raised by Opposite Party No.1, was that the complainant is not a consumer as he did not buy any goods. It may be stated here that the complainant purchased a plot in the project of Opposite Party No.1, for consideration paid. Thus, for consideration paid, Opposite Party No.1 assured handing over of possession of the plot, allotted to the complainant, within a stipulated period, after due development and basic amenities. Therefore, for the services promised, the complainant clearly falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, this objection of Opposite Party No.1, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.

19.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the development and the basic amenities were complete at the site before offering possession vide letter dated 06.05.2015 or not. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that possession of the plot, in question, vide letter dated 06.05.2015 was not complete, valid and legal possession.     

20.       The complainant has specifically challenged the offer of possession dated 06.05.2015 by way of filing the instant complaint for not obtaining necessary approvals from the Competent Authorities by Opposite Party No.1 and lack of development and basic amenities at the site. When we look into inter se communication between the parties, it becomes apparently clear that there was a promise to make development and then hand over possession of the plot, to the complainant.

21.       In Complaint No.25 of 2016 filed by Sh. Pankaj Mahajan, which is being disposed of by this order, a letter dated 29.06.2015 has been placed on record by the complainant, which has been issued after offer of possession, wherein the Opposite Party admitted that the following amenities were yet to be completed:-

 

• Internal roads not complete as it could be damaged on account of movement of trucks carrying heavy construction material.
• We are in process of completing the balance blacktopping work also.
• The work of roads would be taken up after considerable number of houses are constructed by the allottees.
• Only temporary electricity connection would be made available.
• External roads, networks and infrastructure are the responsibility of Government and the opposite parties are following up with the Government to do so.
• Sewerage treatment plant has not been constructed and will be taken when there is adequate habitation.
• For construction purpose water can be purchased from any authorised vendor permitted by Panchayat, Irrigation department, GMADA etc. 
• Features like swings etc. shall be provided in due course of time.

22.       Though it is evident from Memo No.5001 dated 7.8.2015 (Annexure OP-16), which is letter from the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. Punjab, Patiala wherein it was stated that inspection of subject cited electrical installation was carried out by the Electrical Inspector and the same was found to be conforming to the relevant provisions of Central Electricity Authority (Measure relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 and the  installations  were  approved  for commissioning but clearly, this approval was accorded after offer of possession vide letter dated 06.05.2015.

 

23.       Even the final NOC to Opposite Party No.1 for 85.25 Acres residential township in Sectors 86, 98 and 99 in Village Sambhalkhi, SAS Nagar, Mohali was accorded by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 8.7.2015 (Annexure OP-15), after offer of possession on 06.05.2015. Further, Opposite Party No.1 has itself, placed, on record, copy of application dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure OP-49), which clearly shows that it (Opposite Party No.1) applied for partial completion certificate for Sectors 86, 98 and 99, SAS Mohali only on 29.06.2015 that too after offer of possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant on 06.05.2015. Opposite Party No.1 has averred that it was exempted under PAPRA, except provisions of Section 32 thereof, vide notification dated 14.8.2008 and was not required to obtain completion certificate and it applied for partial completion certificate only for the benefit of the complainants. It may be stated here that as per Govt. Notification No.4966 dated 02.09.2014, all the promoters of Mega Projects were required to get a completion certificate. In the instant case, possession was offered on 06.05.2015 but Opposite Party No.1 applied for partial completion certificate on 29.06.2015.

 

24.       This Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.  and  another’s  case  (supra),  in  Para  36  held that  basic facilities like roads, sewerage, drinking water, electricity, street lights, drainage etc. were to be provided by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. In the case in hand, there is also nothing, on record, that complete development, in respect of the plot, in question, and amenities at the site as promised, as per the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 25.08.2011, Annexure C-6, were available at the site. Had the amenities been completed at the site, then certainly Opposite Party No.1, being in possession of the best evidence, having engaged a number of engineers/architects, would have placed, on record, their reports, to prove that factum. Though the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 pleaded that the basic amenities such as water lines, sewer lines, etc., were required to be provided underground and the same have been provided, but it failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that all other amenities at the site, where the plot, in question, was located, were complete and necessary approvals had been obtained before it (Opposite Party No.1) offered possession vide their letter dated 06.05.2015. Even if the contention of Opposite Party No.1 that certain underground amenities have been provided is accepted, the fact that certain amenities and approvals were complete/obtained after offer of possession, clearly proves its deficiency, as is evident from the position indicated hereinafter. It is evident from letter dated 14.5.2013 (Annexure OP-10) that the validity of NOC from Pollution Angle by Punjab Pollution Control Board was for one year from the date of its issue or till the complete development of residential colony, whichever is earlier. The same was extended vide letter dated 9.12.2014 (Annexure OP-11) up-to 13.5.2015. Opposite Party No.1 has not placed any document, on record, that they had NOC from Pollution angle beyond 13.5.2015. Final NOC granted by PSPCL on 08.07.2015 (Annexure OP-15) was also after notice of possession dated 06.05.2015.  Even letter dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure OP-13) from Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), informed Opposite Party No.1 that “…….Therefore, the arrangements for suitable provision for drinking water supply and safe disposal of sullage/storm discharge and solid waste management shall be made by promoter at his level separately and he

 

shall obtain all necessary approvals from the concerned Authorities as per law in this regard independently. The construction work shall commence only after obtaining approvals as per law from the concerned Authorities……” Besides, number of other conditions were also required to be complied with by the promoter. Opposite Party No.1 has not stated whether they complied with the aforesaid conditions.

25.       In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra), it was held that amenities were not complete. In Abha Arora’s case (supra), this Commission in Para 47 noted with concern, a very serious deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties, in providing service to the complainants, which is extracted hereunder:-

“As per admitted facts on record, External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1275.10 per square yard, are payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. Service tax is also payable by the complainant. As per record, EDC and service tax amount was paid in steps, by the complainant to the opposite parties. As per law and otherwise also, it is expected that the said amount might have been deposited by the opposite parties with the Government/Local Authorities, to provide necessary external infrastructure needed for enjoyment of the plots/units purchased by the consumers. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, 30 months period was available without penalty, with the opposite parties to press with the Government, on payment of EDC, for providing necessary external infrastructure. Very conveniently, in Clause 21.2 it was provided by the opposite parties that they shall carry out only internal development, within the boundary of the project, which includes laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. However, the external linkages for those services, beyond the periphery of the project, is to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. Even if it is presumed, only for the sake of arguments, as on today, the opposite parties may have laid down water lines, sewer lines, storm water drains, roads, electricity, horticulture etc., within the project, admittedly, those lines are not connected with the main lines, to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. For a proper use of plots/units purchased, it is necessary that those lines are connected with the main lines, so that there is no hindrance in enjoying the property purchased.

      There is nothing on record to show that after depositing of EDC, as collected by the opposite parties from the consumers, the said amount was deposited with the Government, in time, and further the matter was taken up with the Government, to provide external infrastructure connecting the project with the main sewerage lines etc. The opposite parties had 30 months of time, which this Commission feels, was sufficient for the State Government or the Local Authorities to complete external infrastructure. It is bounden duty of the real estate developer/opposite parties to ensure that the external infrastructure is complete by the time, possession is to be delivered. If the Local Authorities were not acting, despite receipt of EDC, it was duty of the real estate developer, to take legal recourse. In the present case, it was not done so.  The opposite parties cannot wash of their hands by simply stating that external infrastructure will be provided by the State Government/Local Authorities. If the external infrastructure is not provided, where will the purchasers go? How their grievance will be redressed. If the requisite infrastructure is not available, the developed colonies will turn into slums, within few years. Such a development cannot be termed as regulated development. By not making any efforts, in taking up matter with the State Government/Local Authorities, to ensure that external infrastructure is provided within the stipulated period, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in providing service.”

 

Thus, Opposite Party No.1 cannot wash off its responsibility for non-development of external infrastructure on the ground that the same was the obligation of the State Government. When it (Opposite Party No.1) has received External Development Charges, they were duty bound to ensure by pursuing with the State Government that external infrastructure was complete by the time possession was offered. It was obligatory on part of Opposite Party No.1 to handover possession to the complainant complete in all respects but it miserably failed to do so. Clearly development and amenities were not complete when possession was offered to the complainant vide notice of possession dated 06.05.2015.

26.       The next question which falls for consideration, is, whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by him. It may be stated here that offer of possession sent vide letter dated 06.05.2015 is a mere paper possession. A similar question arose in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra) wherein this Commission in Paras 44 to 46 held as under:-

“44. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by her. It may be stated here that offer sent vide letter dated 21.05.2015, has been held to be a mere paper possession and as on date, the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot, in question. Under these circumstances, it is justifiable for the complainant to say no to the same. It was so said by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). In the above case, possession was not delivered in time. Complaint was filed for refund of amount paid. The State Commission partly allowed it. The builder was allowed to forfeit 10% of the deposited amount, on the ground that the complainant himself rescinded the contract by asking refund of the amount, as possession of the unit had already been offered to him. The remaining amount was allowed to be returned with interest. The complainant in that case was also awarded litigation cost etc. The builder namely Emaar MGF Land Limited went in appeal, which was dismissed, wherein it was specifically observed by the National Commission, that when the promoter/builder has violated material condition in not handing over possession, in time, it is not obligatory for the purchaser to accept possession after that date. The principle of law laid in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. On account of that, the complainant is entitled to get refund of amount deposited by her. In view of above facts of the case, the opposite parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to her, as also escalation in prices.

45.  It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.65,56,513/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest. 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 complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by her, to the tune of Rs.65,56,513/- alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12% from the respective dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties, in case of delayed payment), till realization.

46.  Further, to deny the claim of the complainant(s), it was also argued by Senior Counsel for the opposite parties/ builder that as per Clause 11.3 of the Agreement, they (complainants) could have opted for termination of the Agreement, only after the lapse of 42 months aforesaid, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. 24 months plus (+) 6 months plus (+) 12 months, till the notice of possession is dispatched, whereas, on the other hand, in all the cases, possession has been offered, as such, the option to terminate the same (Agreement) by them (complainants) has been irrevocably lapsed.  Further, in some cases, since offer of possession has been made to the allottees, within the period of 42 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, they were barred to opt termination of the Agreement, as per Clause 11.3.

            Before discussing effect of aforesaid arguments, it is necessary to note down the provisions of Clauses 11.1 and 11.2 of the Agreement dated 19.08.2011. The provisions read thus:-

“11.1 - Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein, and further subject to the Allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and not being in default of any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges, and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to hand over the possession of the said Plot to the Allottee within a period of 24 (Twenty Four) months from the date of execution of this Agreement (“Commitment Period”). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 6 (Six) months (“Grace Period”), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period.

11.2-Subject to Clause 11.1, if the Company fails to offer possession of the said Plot to the Allottee by the end of the Grace Period, it shall be liable to pay to the Allottee compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sq. yd. of the area of the said Plot (“Delay Compensation”) for every month of delay until the actual date fixed by the Company for handing over of possession of the said Plot to the Allottee. The Allottee shall be entitled to payment against such ‘Delay Compensation’ only after completion of all documentation including registration of the Conveyance Deed”.

            Perusal of aforesaid provisions, makes it very clear that as per Clause 11.1, handing over possession of the plot is subject to force majeure circumstances. Clause 11.2 stipulates that the stipulation contained therein is subject to the provisions of Clause 11.1. It is not open to the builder to get 12 months, on payment of delayed compensation, as a matter of right. It has to be shown, whether there was any circumstance, which didn’t allow providing of infrastructure at the site. No such circumstance has been added to claim above period of 12 months. Further, there is nothing on record to show that at the end of 30 months period, to get further period of 12 months, any attempt was made, to make offer of payment of delayed compensation, as envisaged in Clause 11.2 of the Agreement. Even in the notice of offer of possession, which has been held to be paper one, it is not even mentioned that payment of delayed compensation will be made to the complainant, on completion of documentation, including registration of the conveyance deed. The above said stipulation qua payment of delayed compensation amount, after registration of conveyance deed, appears to be draconian. It is totally one sided. As such, it could be termed as unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties. Furthermore, in the present case, admittedly, possession of the plot was offered after the lapse of 42 months i.e. 24 months plus (+) 6 months plus (+) 12 months, as such, the above arguments need to be rejected.

      Otherwise also, as has been held in large number of cases, the payment of paltry amount of compensation, virtually would amount to no compensation for the loss caused to a consumer. The amount offered is not even equal to simple interest being offered by the Banks, against saving bank account. On account of inaction, on the part of the opposite parties, in not fulfilling their obligation under the contract, the very purpose of Agreement has failed and it is open to the complainant to claim refund of her amount, with interest, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 11.3 of the Agreement.  The argument raised by Senior Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.”   

 

27.       Since the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 25.08.2011, 30 months period including 6 months grace period expired on 25.02.2014. Even 12 months extended period, in terms of Clause 11.3 of the Agreement expired on 25.02.2015. The possession was offered to the complainant vide notice of possession dated 06.05.2015, even beyond the extended period i.e. after lapse of around 44 months of execution of Agreement. Finding the possession, so offered, to be a paper possession, the complainant filed the instant complaint on 09.10.2015. The argument of Opposite Party No.1 that delay in remitting the installments by the complainant hampered the smooth development of the project in a timely manner, is clearly after thought. The notices/reminders (Exhibits OP-16 to OP-37) were routine reminders and their contents did not say that due to such delayed payment(s), development was hampered. Even otherwise, it does not justify the inordinate delay, which             took place in offering possession that too                   without complete development and basic amenities.            The delay as per reply of Opposite Party No.1, in                  Para 7 of the written statement, was 41, 60, 98,                131 and 164 days only in respect of different installments.  [The  delay  of  25  days  and  126  days in

 

Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2016 was qua two installments only. Similarly, delay of 22 days and 14 days in Consumer Complaint No.75 of 2016 was also qua two installments only.] No doubt, the complainant deposited the amount as per demand raised by Opposite Party No.1 after getting notice of possession, but deposit of such an installment does not take away the right of the complainant to seek refund when clearly, the possession offered was without complete development and basic amenities.

28.       It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill ‘s case (supra), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. In Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. and other’s case (supra), the agreement between the flat buyers and the developers, M/s. Unitech ltd. for payment of compensation on account of delay in completion of the construction of the apartment was fixed at the rate of Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month of the Super Area. In the aforesaid case, it was contended on behalf of the developers that the complainants were entitled only to the agreed quantum of compensation for the period the project was delayed. Rejecting the said contention, the National Commission in Para 12, inte-ralia, held as under:-

“12……..The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation, which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this very project. This gives credence to the allegation of the complainants that their money has been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r)(1) of the Act that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices enumerated in Section 2(r)(1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be evident from the use of word “including” before the words “any of the following practices”

29.       In the present case also, Opposite Party No.1 committed breach of its obligation, in not offering possession of the plot, in question, within 30 months from 25.08.2011 i.e. date of signing of Buyer’s Agreement and even after expiry of extended delay period of 12 months, on 25.2.2015. As a matter of fact, possession of the plot was offered only on 06.05.2015, that too without basic amenities. A perusal of Clause 11.3 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement clearly provides that “……..from the end of the Grace Period (such 12 month period hereinafter referred to as the “Extended Delay Period”), then the Allottee shall become entitled to opt for termination of the Allotment/Agreement and refund of the actual paid up installment(s) made against the said Plot….”. When Opposite Party No.1 is charging interest for any delay in making payment of installments, its plea that the complainant cannot invoke provisions of Clause 11.3 of the Agreement is not justified being unreasonable. In our opinion, Clause 11.1 cannot have overriding effect over Clause 11.3 of the Agreement. Thus, since Opposite Party No.1  failed to handover legal and valid possession of the plot, in question, with complete development and all basic amenities, to the complainant, even after expiry of 44 months from the execution of Plot Buyer’s Agreement, in view of law laid down in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill ‘s case (supra), the complainant was entitled to seek refund. Thus, in our considered opinion, by not refunding the same, Opposite Party No.1 was deficient in rendering service.

30.       From the aforesaid discussion, it is evidently clear that neither Opposite Party No.1 has completed the development and basic amenities nor did it has all the necessary sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities up-till 06.05.2015 when possession was offered to him (complainant). Thus, the contention of the complainant that possession offered was not a valid and legal possession is corroborated from the evidence on record. It is, therefore, held that Opposite Party No.1 was not only deficient, in rendering service but also indulged into unfair trade practice, by offering a paper possession to the complainant, before completing the basic amenities as also without obtaining the necessary sanctions/approvals.

31.       It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.83,62,557/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by Opposite Party No.1, for its own benefit. Opposite Party No.1 was charging heavy rate of interest, for the period of delay in making payment of installments by the complainant.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest. 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 complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, to the tune of Rs.83,62,557/- alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12% from the respective dates of deposits, till realization.

32.       In view of aforesaid position, Opposite Party No.1 is also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him, as also escalation in prices.

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

34.        For the reasons, recorded above, all the three complaints bearing Nos.237/2015, 25/2016 and 75/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Complaint Case No.237 of 2015 titled ‘Sh. Gurlal Singh Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.’

 

            In this case, Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

(i)   To refund the amount of Rs.83,62,557/-, to   the   complainant,   alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12%, from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  (Rupees              Three Lacs only), to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

 (iv) In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then Opposite Party No.1, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest compounded quarterly @15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) and (iii) above, with interest compounded quarterly @12% from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Complaint Case No.25 of 2016 titled ‘Sh. Pankaj Mahajan Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.’

 

(i)   To refund the amount of Rs.60,19,535.66, to   the   complainant,   alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12%, from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  (Rupees              Three Lacs only), to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.70,000/-, to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

 (iv) In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest compounded quarterly @15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) and (iii) above, with interest compounded quarterly @12% from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

Complaint Case No.75 of 2016 titled ‘Sh. Gaurav Bhatia Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.’

 

            In this case, both the Opposite Parties, are jointly and severally, held liable and are directed as under;-

(i)   To refund the amount of Rs.57,97,645/-, to   the   complainant,   alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12%, from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  (Rupees Two Lacs only), to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practices, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. [The complainant has sought compensation in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs only.]

(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.39,000/-, to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

 (iv) In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest compounded quarterly @15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) and (iii) above, with interest compounded quarterly @12% from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

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

36.       Certified copy of this order be placed in Consumer Complaints No.25 of 2016 and 75 of 2016.

37.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

38.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

May  23, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad