1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 29.10.2019 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.248 of 2018 wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint.

2.      For Convenience, parties are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. Rajiv Chopra, Ex Air Force Sergent is referred to as the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein). While The Air Force Naval Housing Board (in Short the Society) is referred to as the OP-1 (Appellant herein) and M/s SVEC Constrictions Ltd. (in Short Builder) is referred to as the OP-2 (Respondent No. 2 herein).

3.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that the OP-1 Society decided to undertake a residential project on NH-1, opposite Hans Raj Mahila Maha Vidyalaya, near Workshop Chowk, Jalandhar and extensively advertised the same. Thus, the Complainant Booked a 2 BHK, Type-B unit admeasuring 800 Sq Ft on 18.11.2010 and paid the prescribed booking fees. Allotment Letter dated 07.02.2011 was issued to the Complainant. In terms of the Allotment Letter, the units were to be ready for the actual possession by 31.12.2014. On 29.09.2011, the Complainant received a mail from the Society titled "Launch of Jalandhar Project," outlining increase in the super area of the unit from 800 sq. ft. to 955 Sq Ft and revising the unit cost also from Rs.23 Lakhs to Rs.37 Lakhs, which included parking space, VAT and Service Tax. Although the brochure mentioned the construction of a swimming pool, as on the date of filing complaint, no such facility has been built. As per the said letter, the foundation stone laying was slated for 30.09.2011, with a project completion time as 31.12.2014. However, these assurances from the Society went unfulfilled.

4.      The Complainant, a former Air Force Sergeant, took measures to fulfil all legal obligations promptly and secured a loan of Rs.30 lakh from SBI, entering into a Tripartite Agreement. Currently, he and his family are residing in rented house. However, due to the delayed possession, he incurred financial losses by paying additional interest to the Bank on the loan amount and rent liability. After waiting eight months past the stipulated possession delivery date, he issued a cancellation notice vide email on 04.08.2015 to the Society, seeking full refund of the deposited amount for loan repayment. Vide OPs response dated 07.08.2015 they indicated a general policy against withdrawals in the absence of a waitlist, and no refund was issued.

5.      On 11.12.2016, the Society conducted a lottery draw without informing the Complainant. Subsequently, upon inquiry vide email dated 12.03.2017, the Society informed him that his membership had been revoked as per letter dated 04.08.2015, and no refund had been processed due to the lack of anyone in the waiting list. However, the Complainant had not been formally notified of his membership cancellation. Vide email dated 11.08.2017, he expressed grievances regarding service deficiencies by the Society due to which he received two notices from the Bank against to non-submission of Conveyance Deed, leading to reputation damage. He urged the Society to deliver possession of the unit. However, it was of no avail. Despite receiving 100% of the sale consideration, the Society failed to provide possession of the unit to the Complainant. Ultimately, he forwarded a Legal Notice dated 15.12.2017, followed by a reminder dated 23.03.2018, seeking refund of the deposited amount, but received no response. The actions and conduct of the OPs amount to service deficiencies. Feeling aggrieved and alleging deficiency in service by the OPs, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 248 of 2018 and prayed for the following:-

(a) To refund the entire amount of ₹37,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of respective payment till the actual realization;

(b) To reimburse the total rent amount i.e. ₹3,42,000/- (@ ₹9,000/- P.M.) from the original date of handing over the possession of the property i.e. 31.12.2014 till filing the complaint and continue to pay rent amount till the refund of entire amount, along with damages and compensation;

(c) To pay ₹8,00,000/- keeping in view the serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part;

(d) To pay ₹5,00,000/- on account of mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant;

(e) To pay ₹4,00,000/- for physical harassment caused by them for more than 2.5 years; and

(f) To pay ₹1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.

6.      In reply, while OP-2 failed to appear and was placed ex-parte vide order dated 10.06.2019, OP-1 contended that the Complainant is not a "consumer" within the scope of the Act. OP-1, does not offer services in exchange for any sale consideration and OP-1 is a registered society under the Society Registration Act, 1860, operating as a welfare organization with the primary aim of providing housing to serving and retired Air Force, Naval Personnel, and their widows solely on a 'no profit no loss' basis. OP-1 does not engage in the construction and sale of houses for financial gain; rather, it negotiates land acquisition, appoints contractors and architects for construction, and manages funds collected from allottees to complete housing projects across the country under "Self-financing Housing Schemes". Any surplus funds from allottees are returned, while additional costs incurred are equally distributed proportionate to unit sizes. OP-1 argued that the State Commission lacks jurisdiction, citing Clause 28 of the Allotment letter dated 18.01.2007, which stipulates that any disputes between parties shall be settled in Delhi. OP-1 also asserted that the cost of the unit at the time of allotment was tentative and subject to change based on various factors, with additional charges viz. LTMF, VAT, Service Tax, Parking Area fees, and Equalization charges as applicable. Vide affidavit on 03.03.2011, the Complainant acknowledged these terms. OP-1 highlighted that the Complainant had the option to withdraw from the scheme due to increased unit costs. However, vide communication dated 29.09.2011 he chose to remain and even requested a grace period for instalment payments. The OP-1 asserted that the Tripartite Agreement facilitated securing a loan for allotment of the unit for him. Referring to correspondences between the parties, OP-1 contended that his request for cancellation of allotment and refund was addressed, and opportunities were provided to restore the allotment, which he failed to pursue. Instead, he filed a complaint with RERA, Punjab, which was dismissed for being non-maintainable. OP-1 denied receiving the any legal notice dated 15.12.2017 and reminder dated 23.03.2018, asserting that only a second reminder dated 03.04.2018 was received and was responded. Additionally, OP-1 argued that the complaint is time-barred, as the Complainant's grievance regarding possession not being granted by 31.12.2014 should have been addressed within the statutory limitation period ending on 31.12.2016. Finally, OP-1 refuted all other allegations in the complaint and prayed for its dismissal.

7.      The State Commission vide Order dated 29.10.2019, allowed the Complaint with costs and directed the Society as under:-

“i) to refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. ₹37,00,000/-, along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period it remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization.

It is made clear that out of the refundable amount, first of all the outstanding loan amount shall be refunded to State Bank of India and thereafter, the remaining amount, if any, shall be refunded to the complainant; and

ii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of ₹44,000/-..”

8.      Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant/OP-1 filed the present Appeal No.2247 of 2019 seeking the following:

“a) Set aside order dated 29.10.2019 passed by Ld. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Punjab in complaint no. 248/2018.

 b) Grant an ex-parte ad interim Stay against the judgment dated 29.10.2019.

c) Pass any other order as deem fit and proper in the circumstances and in the interest of justice.”

9.      In the Appeal, the Society mainly raised the following issues:

(a) The State Commission failed to note that the Complaint was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. If he is aggrieved due to non grant of possession by 31 12.2014, the cause of action started from 31 12.2014 and limitation to file complaint as per section 24A ended on 31.12.2016

(b) The State Commission unnecessarily and wrongly went into dealing with compliance of various sections of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA) while passing the impugned order which was not an issue in hand.

(c) The State Commission failed to consider that as per Clause-L of the terms of allotment letter "withdrawals" it is clear that "since the dwelling units are constructed based on allottee demand, withdrawals can be permitted only if a waiting list exists and the waitlisted allottee steps into the vacancy created by withdrawal.

(d) The State Commission erred in holding him not liable for payment of maintenance charges, asserting they were due from 2011 but charged from January 2013 to March 2015.

(e) The Appellant is a Welfare Society and not a private builder. All projects are for Defence personnel on the basis of Self-Financed Scheme. Since the money received from the allottees for Jalandhar project has already been invested, and as on date even after considering unsold units as sold, there is still deficit of Rs 10.86 crore. Thus, any additional burden in form of interest / compensation would further deteriorate its financial condition. The Society works on "No Profit No Loss" basis. Compensation awarded by State Commission will be put in the final costing of the project and has to be contributed by the remaining allottees.

10.    In response to the Appeal, the Respondent No. 1 /Complainant filed his written arguments, reiterating the primary issues raised in the original complaint. Respondent No. 2 did not appear on multiple occasions and was placed ex-pate, as per order dated 16.11.2023.

11.    In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Appellant reiterated the grounds of instant appeal and reply filed before the learned State Commission and asserted that the State Commission overlooked key aspects in its order. It disregarded that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and delved unnecessarily into compliance with irrelevant sections of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Additionally, it ignored terms in the allotment letter regarding withdrawals and maintenance charges. The challenge to the Commission's decision on maintenance charges and its failure to recognize the Appellant's unique position as a Welfare Society operating on a "No Profit No Loss". Given the financial strain faced by the project, any additional burden, such as compensation or interest would exacerbate its situation, ultimately impacting the remaining allottees.

12.    On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/ Complainant reiterated the issues raised in the complaint and strongly supported the State Commission's order. He argued that the Respondent, regardless of whether the Society operates on a 'No profit no loss' basis, qualifies as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent, being an Allottee, has full right to file a complaint seeking possession of the unit or a refund. The counsel cited various judgments of this commission to bolster this argument. The learned Counsel further argued that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act since the knowledge of Membership Cancellation came to light only when he enquired about their absence from the Allotment List, to which the Appellant responded via email dated 22.03.2017. Hence, the cause of action commences from 22.03.2017. He emphasized that the Appellant's actions constitute misrepresentation and deception. He further contended that no refund has been issued by the Appellant to the Respondent despite their Tripartite Agreement, and this failure to refund warrants restoration to the Respondent. Additionally, the counsel argued that the Appellant is misleading the Commission by asserting that their projects are solely for Defence Personnel under a Self-financed Scheme. He pointed that, as per the Appellant's own notice dated 30.01.2017, the Jalandhar Scheme is open to general public as well. Considering this, along with the fact that there is still a deficit of Rs.10.86 Crores in the Jalandhar Scheme even after purportedly selling all unsold units, the appeal should be dismissed.

13.    The Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant has placed reliance upon the following judgements to support his argument: -

(a) M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known as M/s. Hicon Infrastructure & Anr. vs. Trevor D’lima & Ors., Civil Appeals Nos. 3533-3534 of 2017, decided on 12.03.2018.

(b) Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002, decided on 03.12.2009.

14.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

15.    The central issues for determination is whether the Housing Society fulfilled its contractual obligations with respect to the Complainant; and whether the Complainant is entitled to possession of the unit or refund, along with compensation.

16.    The Complainant alleged that he had entered into an agreement with the Society to purchase a unit in the said housing project. However, the Society failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. Additionally, he contended misrepresentation by OP-1 with respect to final cost and amenities offered. The Complainant sought either possession of the unit or a refund of the amount paid, along with compensation for the delay, loss of interest, and other associated damages. On the other hand, the Society asserted that it operates on a 'No profit no loss' basis and contended that the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond its control. The Society argued that the Complainant had the option to withdraw from the project when the costs escalated but chose to continue with the agreement. Further, the complaint was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that he is not a consumer under the Act.

17.    It is undisputed that the Complainant had applied for allotment of a residential unit in the project of the OPs vide Application dated 18.11.2010. An Allotment Letter dated 07.02.2011 was issued to him, allocating dwelling unit Type-B, admeasuring 800 Sq Ft, at a tentative cost of Rs.23 Lakhs. Subsequently, the area of the unit was revised to 955 Sq Ft, resulting in a corresponding increase in the cost to Rs.37 Lakh. As per Clause-17 of the Allotment Letter, the possession of the unit was to be delivered by the end of 2014. Therefore, to facilitate the purchase, he secured a home loan of Rs.30 Lakhs from State Bank of India, and a Tripartite Agreement was also executed involving the Complainant, the Society and the Bank. He then paid a total of Rs.37 Lakhs to OPs as is evidenced by the Statement of Account. Since OPs failed to complete the unit within time as per the contract, after waiting for some time vide email dated 04.08.2015, he requested for cancellation of allotment and a refund of the deposited amount with interest and damages.

18.    The Society responded vide letter dated 07.08.2015, that withdrawal from the scheme is generally not permitted unless there is a waitlist. Even if permitted under special circumstances, refunds are contingent upon a new allottee joining and paying the instalments due, without accruing any interest on the refunded amount and after deduction of cancellation charges. Subsequently, when the draw of lots was held, the Complainant, vide email dated 12.03.2017, inquired why his name was excluded. It was replied by the Society vide email dated 22.03.2017 that the membership of the Complainant in the project of the Society was cancelled at his request on 04.08.2015, and no refund was made due to the absence of a waitlist. However, he was advised to restore his membership by preferring a request. It is the specific contention of the Society that the Complainant had option to withdraw from the scheme when the area of the unit and the price were revised. He chose not to do so. The refund sought was not due to this reason, but due to the failure of the Society to complete the project and deliver possession of the unit in time. Similarly, the contention of the OPs that refund would be made to the Complainant only upon entry of a new allottee and paying the instalments due, without accruing any interest on amount due to be refunded and after deducting cancellation charges is untenable, as the deficiency lies solely on the Society for delay and the non-delivery of possession.

19.    The Ld. State Commission in its order dated 29.10.2019, made the following observations: -

“19. There is no evidence on record to prove that the project unit, in question, or a part thereof has been got certified by the opposite parties from the local/competent authority, so as to deliver its complete possession to the complainant for his occupation. However, no Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority has been produced by the opposite parties on the record, which itself is violation of above reproduced Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing) as well as Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, reproduced above. Even till today, no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been produced before this Commission. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above noted authority, without issuance of such a certificate by the competent authority, the opposite parties cannot be said to be in a legal position to hand over possession of a particular unit, in question, to the complainant. There is also no evidence on record to prove that the opposite parties have complied with various provisions of PAPRA.

20. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, “PAPRA”), they were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days’ notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

21. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony, but they failed to produce on record any such permission. So, they violated Section 5 of PAPRA.

22. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, they also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

23. The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the unit within a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of land and development thereof within a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with the opposite parties, he would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the unit within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties, i.e. builders, knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with various provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period and, thus, by misrepresentation induced the complainant to book the unit, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period it remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, besides composite compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him and litigation expenses. So far as the prayer of the complainant regarding rent charges is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that there is no such contract between the parties for payment of rent charges to the complainant. Moreover, since the entire amount deposited by the complainant is to be refunded along with compensation, so this will take care of the said prayer of the complainant.

24. It also needs to be noticed that the complainant obtained loan of ₹30 lac from State Bank of India and Tripartite Agreement, Ex.C-5, was executed between the complainant, opposite party No.1 and the said Bank. As per Clause-7 of the Tripartite Agreement, in the event of cancellation of allotment of the borrower (complainant) by the authority (opposite party No.1) for any reason whatsoever, the authority (opposite party No.1) shall refund the entire received amount of loan to the Bank. Therefore, out of the refundable amount, first of all the outstanding loan amount shall be refunded to State Bank of India by opposite party No.1 and thereafter the remaining amount, if any, shall be refunded to the complainant.”

20.    Without doubt, there was delay in completion of construction of the Flat as per “the Allotment Letter”. The Complainant had invested heavy amount with the intention to get the possession of the flat in time. There are catena of judgements wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission have decided favourably on the right of the buyers to get a refund of their money in case of delay by the Developer in giving possession in terms of the Buyer’s Agreement.

21.   In the case of Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri- {(II 2015 CPJ 568 (NC)}, Decided on 30.03.2015, this Commission has held as under:

“After the promised date of delivery, it is the discretion of the Complainant whether to accept the offer of possession, if any, or to seek refund of the amounts paid by him with some reasonable compensation and it is well within his right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation.” 

22.   Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan, ll (2019) CPJ 34 (SC), decided on 02.04.2019 as under:

“We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant – Builder failed to fulfil his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent – Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent – Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @10% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent – Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the 22 Respondent – Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest”.

Further, para 6.7 of the Order reads as :

“A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement of 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling flats by the Builder.

Further, para 7 of the Order reads as under :

“In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

23.    Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, a sum of Rs.44,000/- compensation on account of mental agony awarded  by the learned State Commission is untenable.

24.    It is an established position that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the Act and that the complaint was filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Act. It is uncontested position that the Complainant had applied for allotment of unit in the project of the Society and Allotment Letter dated 07.02.2011 was issued to him. As per the terms of allotment, the possession of the unit was to be handed over by end of 2014. Subsequently, for some reason, the Society decided to increase the area of the unit and also the cost and notified the Complainant. He accepted the same. Thereafter, to pay the consideration to the Society, he applied for home loan from State Bank of India. Subsequently, a Tripartite Agreement was entered into amongst the Complainant, Society and Bank, entailing certain obligations to all parties. While the said agreement brought on record is undated, the execution of the same is undisputed. In terms of Para-7 of the said Agreement, ‘in the event of cancellation of the allotment of the Borrower (Complainant) by the Authority (Society), for any reason whatsoever, the Authority (Society) shall refund to the Bank forthwith, the entire amount received from it.’ It is also an uncontested position that this liability of the Society was left unperformed resulting in financial implications on the Bank as well as the Complainant.

25.    Admittedly, the project was delayed and the Complainant had sought cancellation of allotment and refund of deposit, with interest and damages. While the Society cancelled the allotment and his name was deleted from the draw of lots for possession, the refund of deposit was not actioned. The Complainant was notified that no one is in the waitlist and the amount would be paid only upon entry of a new allottee and paying the dues, without any interest on amount due after deducting cancellation charges. This stand of the Society is untenable, with due regard to the established judicial precedents, and the Society is liable on this account.

26.    At the same time, it is also undisputed that the Society is established for welfare of certain designated group of individuals, and it fundamentally operates on 'No profit no loss' basis. It is specifically argued that imposing any liability entailing significant financial implications would entail recoveries from other members of the project in question who are not parties in the present case.

27.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, the order of the learned State Commission in CC No. 248 of 2018 dated 29.10.2019 is modified as under

ORDER

1. The Air Force Naval Housing Board (Society) is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.37,00,000/- to the Complainant, along with simple interest @ 6% from the respective dates of payment till actual realization of the complete amount, within a period of two months from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond the period of two months, the interest applicable shall be 9%. Of this amount due to be refunded to the Complainant, the outstanding loan amount, if any, shall be refunded to the State Bank of India. Thereafter, the balance amount, if any, shall be paid to the Complainant.

2. The Air Force Naval Housing Board (Society) is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation, to the Complainant.

3. The order of the learned State Commission to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant to the tune of Rs.44,000/- is set-aside.

28.    Consequently, the instant First Appeal No. FA/2247/2019 stands disposed of.

29.    All the pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 

30.    The statutory the amount deposited by the Appellants, if any due, shall be refunded after compliance of this order.