Complainant/respondent was allotted Flat No.103, Chinar-A Tower on first floor in ‘Omaxe Parkwoods’ project of the appellants at Baddi, H.P.  As per the

2

agreement entered into between the parties on 18.7.2007, respondent paid 95% of the total consideration in instalments till June 2008.  Actual possession of the flat was not handed over to the respondent as per schedule till July 2009.  Respondent, after serving legal notice on the appellants on 25.7.2009, filed complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction reserving liberty with the complainant to file the complaint before the competent court.  In the meantime, respondent paid the balance amount as well.  Appellants issued No Dues Certificate.  During the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, physical possession was handed over to the respondent without completion certificate.  Alleging that the appellants had not applied for the completion certificate from the Development Authority, sale/conveyance deed was not executed.  Respondent filed complaint seeking a direction to the appellants to execute the sale/conveyance deed. 

State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to execute and registered the sale/conveyance deed in favour of the respondent after obtaining completion certificate  from  the  concerned Authority   within   60  days  on  payment  of  the  Stamp Duty  by  the respondent.  Appellants were directed to pay interest @ 6% from 18.7.2009 till 19.12.2010 on the amounts deposited up to 17.7.2009 and interest at the same rate on the amounts deposited after 17.7.2009 till 19.12.2010; to pay compensation for delay @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. of super area per month for the period of delay and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and costs of Rs.20,000/-.  State Commission in its order held as under :

“The symbolic, in fact, physical possession of the flat, in question, no doubt, has already been

3

delivered to the complainant. However, it is to be seen, as to whether, such possession could be said to be a legal possession, or not. According to Annexure C-10 dated 13.09.2010, received by the complainant, from the HIMUDA, the Opposite Parties had not applied for the issuance of completion certificate, and, as such, the question of issuance of the same, in their favour did not at all arise. In the absence of issuance of completion certificate, in respect of the Project, in which the flats were constructed, to the Opposite Parties, by the Competent Authorities, even if physical possession of the flat, had been delivered to the complainant, it could not be said to be, in any way, legal. The possession of the complainant, in respect of the flat, could only be  deemed  to  be  legal, after the completion certificate is obtained by the Opposite Parties, from the Competent Authorities. By not obtaining the completion certificate of the Project, from the Competent Authorities, and handing over the possession of the flat, to the complainant on 30.12.2010, which by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be legal, the Opposite Parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.”

          State Commission allowed the complaint in the following terms :

⁴

^{“For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed, with costs, in the following manner:-}

                              ^{i.   The Opposite Parties are directed to execute and get registered the sale deed/conveyance deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the flat, in question, and deliver him legal possession of the same, after obtaining the completion certificate, from the Competent Authorities, within a period of 60 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.}

                             ^{ii.   In the event of execution of the sale deed/conveyance deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the flat, in question, after obtaining the completion certificate, by the Opposite Parties, from the Competent Authorities, the stamp duty, registration fees and other miscellaneous charges, shall be paid by the complainant.}

                           ^{iii.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay simple interest @6% P.A., from 18.07.2009 to 29.12.2010, on the amounts deposited by the}

⁵

^{complainant upto 17.07.2009, and interest at the same rate on the amount(s) deposited after 17.07.2009, from the respective date(s) of deposit(s) till 29.12.2010, as indicated in paragraph number 17 above.}

                      iv.   ^{The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant, compensation for delay} @Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per sq. ft. of the super area, per month, for the period of delay i.e. from 18.07.2009, until the sale deed/conveyance deed is executed, in his favour, in respect of the flat, in question, by the Opposite Parties, after obtaining the completion certificate from the Competent Authorities, as per Clause 28(e) of the agreement Annexure C-5.

                             ^{v.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant, compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, as indicated in paragraph number 20 above.}

⁶

                            ^{vi.   The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant, cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.”}

The appeal was listed for admission hearing on 7.1.2013.  On the said date, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was prepared to comply with all the directions issued by the State Commission except Direction No.1 requiring the appellants to execute the sale/conveyance deed in favour of the respondent after issuing the completion certificate from the competent authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  According to him, the period of 60 days to get the completion certificate was very short.  He took time to seek instructions as to the time-frame within which the appellants would be able to get the completion certificate.   The case was adjourned to 4.2.2013.  On 4.2.2013, the case was adjourned for today, as the counsel for the appellant needed more time to get the instrucitons.

Counsel for the appellant states that the appellants are unable to get any firm instructions as to the time frame within which the completion certificate will be handed over.  Contends that the project is complete and he has already filed an application seeking completion certificate with the concerned Authority; that he is unable to give the time frame within which the appellants will get the completion certificate.

Since the appellants have already completed the project and applied for the completion certificate, we dispose of the appeal directing the appellant to execute the sale deed soon after getting the completion certificate from the concerned authority, in any case within 6 months from today. 

7

The Authorities are also directed to expedite the issuance of the completion certificate.

Counsel for the appellants states that other directions issued by the State Commission shall be complied with within 60 days from today, if not already done.