Haryana

Karnal

CC/92/2021

Vijay Kumar Bairagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

RPS Infrastructure Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Mittal

03 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 92 of 2021

                                                      Date of instt.11.02.2021

                                                      Date of Decision:03.11.2023

 

Vijay Kumar Bairagi son of Mam Chand Bairagi, house no.1970, sector-4, Part-2, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

RPS Infrastructure Limited 1117-1120, 11^th floor, Tower-B, DLF Tower, Jasola, District Centre, New Delhi-110025.

…..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

            

Argued by:  Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Y.S. Rathore, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant intend to purchase a residential flat in residential group society at Faridabad and OP’s official approached to complainant for sale of the flat under the name RPS Auria, situated at RPS City, Sector-88, Faridabad in the year 2013. On the assurance of the representative of OP, complainant booked a unit/flat in the project of the OP and at the time of booking of the flat, OP received Rs.5,71,517/- as total booking amount. Representative of OP assured the complainant that an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement executed in a very short span of time but actually after giving many reminders this Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 08.11.2014 after a gap of 19 months from the date of booking 03.04.2013 with ulterior motive to deprive the complainant with delay compensation of this 19 months period. Complainant had purchased the unit/flat no.T-4-805 for a valuable consideration and through proper process the unit/flat was got allotted, vide allotment letter dated 12.11.2014. It was stated that the project will be completed within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement i.e. 08.11.2014 and the OP will handover possession of the unit/flat in question in the said time period. The complainant was allotted flat no.T-4 805 on from the OP in the project named “RPS Auria, situated at RPS City, Sector-88, Faridabad, Haryana and an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 08.11.014. As per the allotment letter, the total sale consideration for the flat would be Rs.55,43,856/- alongwith Rs.17,07,225/- external development charges/infrastructure development charges etc. i.e. total Rs.72,51,081/-. Till date a sum of Rs.57,98,634/- has been paid by the complainant against the said booking/allotment. Even after expiry of 7 years from the date of booking, till date only an undeveloped structure of one out of the several building forming part of the project has been erected on the project land which is incapable of possession. Additionally, there is no other development on the project land for last two years and the construction activities have been stopped since time without any reasonable justification. After halt of the construction from last more than 2 years, the complainant started making enquiries from the other allottees as well as from the employees of the OP and come to know surprising facts that the OP neither have any right over the land, nor have requisite sanctions or approvals from the concerned competent authorities and moreover company has not any occupancy certificate till date. The obligation to handover possession within a period 48 months was not fulfilled. Surprisingly on 03.03.2020, complainant received a demand letter from OP in which OP demanded Rs.5,72,266/- more payment for further construction despite the lapse the time of agreement dated 08.11.2014. The last demand letter before 03.03.2020 was raised on 23.11.2015 for the last floor completion. This itself shows and proves the delay in construction by the developer. The complainant having no other alternative gave a letter dated 17.03.2020 to the OP to refund the amount alongwith interest but OP failed to refund the amount. Instead of refunding the amount, OP threatened the complainant that the amount of the complainant be forfeited if the rest of the amount not paid to the OP. Instead of refunding the amount, OP sent a reminder dated 29.06.2020 to the complainant and demanded Rs.5,72,266/-.

2.             It is further averred that on receipt of more than 80% of the basic sale price and all charges towards PLC and development charges, the OP did not complete any construction on the project. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP to provide status of construction as well as information on the expected date of delivery of the project. When the OP failed to deliver the possession of the flat on time the complainant has rented out a residential accommodation to live-in and has paid Rs.3,49,536/- for the rental accommodation. The complainant had obtain loan from the bank for making the payment within time and paid interest of Rs.8,52,511/- to the bank. It is further averred that OP demanded payment every time through demand notices in which OP charged interest on delayed payment @ 18% per annum upto 30 days and @21% thereafter for the total period from the due date compounded annually and all the terms and conditions to impose upon the allotees of the flats. Whenever OP charged @ 21% per annum interest on delayed payment in that event complainant is also entitled @ 21% interest on his payment. That comes out  Rs.57,98,634/- paid to builder and interest Rs.72,43,757/- total comes out Rs.1,30,42,391/-. Despite the payment of Rs.57,98,634/- without any default against the total consideration of Rs.72,51,081/- for the said apartment and despite repeated requests and reminders, phone calls and personal visits by the complainant, the OP has failed to provide possession of the unit without any reasonable justification. When OP failed to deliver the possession of the flat on time, complainant visited the office of OP and requested to cancel their allotment and refund their money but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Complainant sent a letter lastly on 17.03.2020 to the OP and raised his claim before the OP and also requested that he wants to cancel the allotment of the flat in question and wants to refund of his hard earned money but till date no reply has been received from the OP despite that OP sent a reminder dated 29.06.2020 to the complainant and demanded Rs.5,72,266/- more payment for further construction despite the lapse the time of agreement dated 08.11.2014 illegally. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP develop a residential Group Housing Colony in terms bearing licence no.124 of 2008 dated 14.06.2008 granted by the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975. The requisite building plan required for commencement of construction was under revision and the Plans were revised/approved in respect of said area of 16.925 acre situated in village Palwali and Baselwa, tehsil and district Faridabad, sector 88, greater Faridabad by the DGTCP, vide memo no.XP-471/SD(DK)/2015/8091-92 dated 18.05.2015 and after approval of revised building plans, the construction of the project including the said unit was commenced. It is further pleaded that complainant alongwith their property consultant approached the OP and applied for allotment of a residential unit. Considering the application dated 03.04.2013, a residential unit i.e. unit no.0805 in Tower no.T-4 in the project of the OP has allotted in favour of the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 12.11.2014 for a basic sale price of Rs.57,74,850/-. The super area is subject to revision i.e. increase/decrease as per final area at the time of completion of construction, issuance of occupation certificate and offer of possession alongwith development charges; Rs.7,35,550/-, preferential location charges of Rs.1,56,500/- and additional charges of Rs.8,15,175/- i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- towards club membership; Rs.3,00,000/- towards one cover car parking allocation charges; Rs.60,000/- towards power back up installation charges-2KVA; Rs.2,26,925/- towards external electrification charges and fire fighting charges and Rs.78,250/- towards interest free maintenance security aggregating the net sale price to Rs.72,51,081/- besides applicable taxes, stamp duty, registration charges etc. payable by t he complainant towards sale consideration in respect of said unit which are also based on the approximate super area. The said covered area/super area are tentative and are subject to final measurement at the time of completion of unit and offer of possession. It is further pleaded that for the allotment of said unit, complainant applied to HDFC Ltd. having their branch office at the Capital Court, OLOF Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi for a housing loan of Rs.54,00,000/- by securing the said unit under finance by way of mortgage of all rights, title, benefits that would accrue from the said unit till the duration of the said loan and to that effect a Tripartite Agreement among the complainant as borrower, the OP as Builder and HDFC as Lender Bank was signed and executed on 05.12.2014.

4.             It is further pleaded that in terms of clause 22 and 23 of the Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.11.2014, the OP had to make an endeavor to complete the construction of the said unit within 48 months from the date of execution of the Buyer’s Agreement or from the date of getting various sanctions from the concerned authorities required for commencement of construction of the project whichever is later, and subject to the force majeure circumstances and receipt of all the installment as per payment plan, additional charges due and payable, stamp duty and other charges upto date of the offer of possession. It is further pleaded that in case of any delay (except force majeure) by the OP in completion of construction of the said unit and the complainant not being in default of terms and conditions as set out in the Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.11.2014, the company shall pay compensation @ 10/- per sq. ft. per month or part thereof to the allottee. The complainant is entitled to get compensation at specified rate which is agreed to be determined at the time of execution of conveyance deed. Thus, the mechanism for compensation on account of delay in completion of construction of the said unit, owing to the OP is categorically stipulated in Buyer’s Agreement duly signed and executed by the complainant and OP and parties are bound by the same. It is further pleaded that despite facing several hurdles in the form of unforeseen circumstances as also lockdown due to covid-19, OP took all possible efforts to complete the construction of the said Tower to an extent that it even inducted huge funds apart from the funds realized from allottees with the sole intention of ensuring that the construction/development of the said tower i.e T-4 is not stalled for want of funds. It is further pleaded that RCC structure, Terrace, Mumti and Machine Room and Basement around the Tower is completed; Brick work is completed upto 90% and external and internal plaster is completed more than 80% and in view of the progress of the project, the construction of Tower no.T-4 stands more than 90% completed and the remaining works such as finishing works, service etc. are in progress and are expected to be completed soon and upon receipt of occupation certificate in terms of licence, the possession of the unit will be delivered to the complainant. It is further pleaded that as per terms and conditions of allotment/Buyer’s Agreement and as per stages of construction, the installments became due and the demand notices in respect of the said installments were duly served on the complainant. Now against the total outstanding of Rs.67,39,332/- an amount of Rs.57,98,637/- inclusive of service tax/VAT is remitted in installments against the said unit and accordingly an amount of Rs.9,40,698/- alongwith interest is still due and payable. Apart from above, prior to taking of delivery of possession of the said unit, two more installments as per stages of construction, are yet to be paid by the complainant as detailed below:-

1. On completion of flooring: dues will consist of 5% of basic sale price +alongwith due against ECC/FFC etc. as per agreed terms.
2. On offer of possession: due will consist of 5% of basic sale price +IFMS alongwith dues against ECC/FFC etc. as per agreed terms.

The complainant vide letter dated 18.12.2014 requested the OP to waive off the interest of Rs.13,86,818/- whereas the said amount was against installment of Rs.6,39,458/- dated 06.03.2014 on start of Excavation; installment of Rs.3,73,680/- dated 23.07.2014 on completion of foundation; and installment of Rs.3,73,680/- dated 03.11.2014 on completion of first floor Roof Slab Casting which was deposited by the complainant on 18.12.2014 i.e. after a delay of about 9 months which the complainant categorically admitted his default in making timely payment of installments. It is evident that 90% of the construction of the said tower is completed and remaining work such as finishing and services are in progress and are expected to be completed soon and thereafter upon receipt of requisite occupation certificate, the possession will be offered to the allottee. Due to pandemic situation and Government extension approval of completion of project for one y ear, the OP is entitled to complete the construction of the said unit by the year 2022 whereas the OP is hopeful of constructing the said unit way before the stipulated time despite facing several disruptions due to force majeure circumstances market slowdown, covid-19 etc. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. As per clause 64 of the Agreement, any dispute arising between the parties shall be referred to the Arbitration and thus this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of booking application dated 29.05.2013 Ex.C1, copy of allotment letter dated 12.11.2014 Ex.C2, copy of Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C3, copy of demand letter dated 03.03.2020 Ex.C4, copy of reply cum notice dated 17.03.2020 Ex.C5, copy of reminder dated 29.06.2020 Ex.C6, copy of email Ex.C7, copy of demand notices dated 11.07.2013, 06.03.2014, 23.07.2014, 03.11.2014, 13.01.2015, 09.03.2015, 08.05.2015, 14.07.2015, 23.11.2015, 04.03.2107, 21.11.2018 Ex.C8 to Ex.19, copy of aadhar card Ex.C20, copy of order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 21.12.2020 Ex.C21 and closed the evidence on 01.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Jain Ex.OP1/A, certificate of incorporation Ex.OP1, Board Resolution Ex.OP2, Registration certificate Ex.OP3, Buyer’s Agreement Ex.OP4, copy of licence no.124 of 2008 Ex.OP5, copy of agreement Ex.OP6, copy of Environment Clearance Ex.OP7, copy of approval of transfer of part licence Ex.OP8, copy of transfer order of part licence Ex.OP9, copy of approval of revised plan Ex.OP10, copy of application Ex.OP11, copy of allotment letter Ex.OP12, copy of true copy of TPT Ex.OP13, copy of demand notices dated 11.07.2013, 06.03.2014, 23.07.2014, 03.11.2014, 13.01.2015, 09.03.2015, 08.05.2015, 14.07.2015, 23.11.2015, 04.03.2017, 29.06.2020 Ex.OP14, copy of application dated 18.12.2014 by complainant to OP Ex.OP15, copy of email 24.06.2015 and 23.08.2013 Ex.OP16 and Ex.OP17 and closed the evidence on 09.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 8.            We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that OP/company launched a residential project known as RPS Auria, situated at RPS City, Sector-88, Faridabad in the year 2013. The complainant purchased a unit/flat no.T-4-805, vide allotment letter Ex.C2 dated 12.11.2013. A buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties. The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.57,74,850/- and the net sale price  of the flat was of  Rs.72,51,081/-including EDC, IDC, Prime Location charges and IFMS etc.. As per terms and conditions allotment letter Ex.C2 dated 12.11.2014 , OPs/company were supposed to provide necessary amenities and were supposed to deliver the possession of the flat within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement i.e. 08.11.2014. Complainant has paid more than 80% of the basic sale price and all charges towards PLC and development charges, OP did not complete any construction on the project. He further argued that instead of deliver the physical possession of the flat within stipulated period, OP/company has started illegal demands 5,72,266/- and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for complainants relied upon following judgments titled as Abhishek Khanna and others in Civil appeal no.5785 of 2019, date of decision 11.01.2021; Mr.Mridula Rajbanshi and another Vs. Umang Realtech (P) Ltd. 2021 SCej 1087 (NCDRC); Jose Mariano Corderio Versus M/s Kalash Real Estate Developers in First appeal no.12 of 2018, date of decision 01.02.2021; Deepak Goyal and another Versus M/s North Star Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and others, in consumer case no.871 of 2017, date of decision n 28.09.2021 and Sunny Ahuja Versus Raheja Developers Ltd. in consumer case no.180 of 2020, date of decision 03.01.2022; Chandigarh Housing board Vs. M/s Parasvanath Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2020(4) CCC 358 (S.C.); NBCC (India) Limited Versus Shri Ram Trivedi 2021 (3) CCC 080 (S.C.) and Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Versus Shrihari Gokhale and Anr. 2020 (1) CCC 248 (SC).         .

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the contents of written version and also submitted the written arguments and argued that a residential unit i.e. unit no.0805 in Tower no.T-4 in the project of the OP allotted in favour of the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 12.11.2014 for a basic sale price of Rs.57,74,850/-. The complainant is a habitual defaulter in paying the installments in respect of the unit in question. Against the total outstanding amount of Rs.67,39,332/-, the complainant has only paid Rs.57,98,637/-, which is inclusive of service tax and an amount of Rs.9,40,698/- alongwith interest is still due and outstanding against the complainant. As per clause 17 of the Buyer’s Agreement, the allottee shall make all the payment within stipulated time but complainant has failed to do so. Delay to complete the construction and handing over the possession, if any, same was due to recession which was beyond the control of the OP. The main reasons of delay in construction were because complainant and many other defaulter allottees failed to make  the payments in time. The construction of tower no.4 was 90% complete in the month of December, 2021 and accordingly the OP had applied to the DGTCP/HUDA for grant of occupation certificate on 05.04.2022, which the DGTCP was issued on 25.01.2023. The complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.72,51,081/- as on 08.11.2018 but has failed to pay the same. The unit is complete in all aspects and is ready to be occupied and is inhabitable state. He further argued that as per clause 64 of the Agreement, any dispute arising between the parties shall be referred to the Arbitration and thus this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned counsel for the OP relied upon the case laws titled as Parshant Kumar Shahi Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority 2000(4) SCC 120; DLF Southern Homes Vs. Dipu C. Seminlal, RP/1973/2014 and Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. & ors in criminal appeal no.1406 of 2012, decided on 18.10.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           Admittedly, complainant purchased a residential unit (flat) in the project of the OP. It is also admitted that total sale consideration of said flat was of Rs.72,51,081/-.  It is also admitted that complainant has paid the amount of Rs.57,98,634/-. It is also admitted that complainant has taken the loan of Rs.54,00,000/- from HDFC Bank for purchasing the flat in question.  It is also admitted that as per clause 22 and 23 of the Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C3/Ex.OP4 dated 12.11.2014, the OP had to make endeavour to complete the construction of the said unit within 48 months from the date of execution of Buyer’s Agreement, subject to the force majeure circumstances.

13.           The first question arises for consideration is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

14.           The OP has taken a plea in view of clause 64 of the Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C3/Ex.OP4, it provides for arbitration clause in case of dispute arising between the parties.  In this regard, we are of the considered view that if for the sake of argument it may be considered that there exists an arbitration clause in Buyer’s Agreement, in that case also this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as it is a settled proposition of law that complaint under Consumer Protection Act, being an additional remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement, the proceedings before Consumer Commission have to go on. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. In this regard, we place reliance on the case titled “M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Versus Aftab Singh, review petition © Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.55 as under:-

“We may, however, hasten to add that in the event a person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes being proceeded in arbitration. It is only the case where specific/special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to the arbitration.”  

 

15.           Further, similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sanjay Gopinath Versus M/s IREO Grace Realitech Pvt. Ltd. (bunch of the cases) decided on 31.08.2021 wherein Hon’ble National Commission while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Versus Aftab Singh-I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC) has held that an Arbitration clause in the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to entertain the complaint. Hence, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the clause of Arbitration bars this commission from entertaining the complaints is unsustainable.

16.           Further, complainant resides in Sector-4, Karnal and as per Section 34(2)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down in the above judgments and facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission. Hence, the plea taken by the OP has no force.

 17.          As per clause 22 and 23 of the Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C3/OP4 dated 12.11.2014, the project was to be completed within 48 months from the date of execution of Agreement. The clause 22 of the Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C3/Ex.OP4 dated 12.11.2014 is reproduced as under:-

“Subject to due compliance of the obligations and terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to timely payment of the total price, stamp duty and other charges by the allottee(s), the company shall endeavor to complete the construction of the said unit within 48 months from the date of execution of this agreement or from the date of getting requisite sanctions from the concerned authorities, for commencement of construction of the project whichever is later…………

Both the parties were bound with the terms and conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement and as per clause 22 of Buyer’s Agreement, the project would have completed within 48 months from the date of execution of agreement. The Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 12.11.2014. As per clause 22 of the Buyer’s Agreement, the project was to be completed within 48 months i.e. on or before 11.11.2018. Admittedly, the construction of the tower no.4 was 90% completed upto the month of December, 2021. Hence, it has been proved on record that OP has failed to complete the project within stipulated period. Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of the possession. In this regard we are relying upon the following authorities:-

18.           In Abhishek Khanna’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in delivery of possession of apartment-Refund-Factum of delay in completing construction and making offer of possession is undisputed fact in this case-Court directed developer appellant to refund entire amount deposited by respondent buyers as categorized in two categories by Court. Further, in Mridula Rajbanshi’case (supra) the Hon’ble National Commission held that Builder-Allotment of flat-Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the opposite party in relying on Force Majeure clause while retaining the amounts deposited by the complainants, is not only an act of Deficiency in Service but also of Unfair Trade Practice-Direct the Builder Co. to refund the entire principal amount received alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the actual date of payment together with costs of Rs.50,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till its realization. Further, in Jose Mariano Cordeiro’s case (supra) the Hon’ble National Commission held that Possession delayed-Housing Residential flat-opposite party, failed to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated period-Deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Since deficiency in service was established on the part of the Respondent/opposite party-sought interest and compensation-Scope-Held-If builder is found deficient in service is entitled to pay compensation during period of delay period-complainant entitled for compensation for delayed handing over of possession.  Further, in Deepak Goyal’s case (supra) the Hon’ble National Commission held that Delay in possession of flat-Unfair Trade Practice-Complaint before National Commission-under clause-8 (a) of Flat Buyer’s Agreement promised period for offer of possession was 36 months with grace period of 90 days from the date of execution of the FBA, subject to exception as given under clause 8 (b), 38, delay in approval of sanctioned plan and issue of Occupation Certificate-promised period for offer of possession expired in November, 2015-Bulding not taken any plea and offer of possession was delayed either for delay in sanction of layout plan or in issue of Occupancy Certificate-Possession notice was issued on 27.11.2018, with delay of three years-Held, allottee cannot be made to wait for indefinite period for possession complaint allowed with cost of Rs.one lakh-Direction to builder to refund amount Rs.66,58,319/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum”.

 19.          Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OP by not completing the project within stipulated period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

20.           The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the OP are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.

21.           Admittedly, complainant deposited Rs.57,98,634/- with the OP and since then OP has been continuously  enjoying the hard earned money of the complainant for such a long time. Thus, complainant is entitled for refund of deposited amount alongwith interest, compensation on account of mental agony and litigation expenses.

22.           In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.57,98,634/- (Rs. fifty seven lakhs ninety eight thousand six hundred thirty four only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear, if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period, then this abovesaid amount shall carry interest carry @ 12% per annum. It is made clear complainant will bound to clear all  the  outstanding bank loan,  pending, if any. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:03.11.2023.                          

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                        Member