DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.557 of 2015

                                               Date of institution:  16.10.2015                                             Date of decision   :  21.09.2018

Prem Kumari Soni wife of S. Balbir Singh, resident of House No.3304, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh now resident of House No.3295, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Sant Shri Asaramji Ashram and Bhagat Kutir Samiti (Regd.No.2021), Vill. Soonik, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab) through its President.

2.     Shri Ajay Shah, President of Sant Shri Asaramji Ashram and Bhagat Kutir Samiti (Regd.No.2021), Vill. Soonik, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab).

3.     Shri Yaswant Krishan Mittal, Ex- President, resident of House No.292, Sector 33, Chandigarh.

4.     Shri Aashish Mittal, Office Secretary, resident of House No.2848, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri S.S. Bains, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Kamal K. Sharma, counsel for OP No.1, 2, & 4.

                Shri V.K. Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.3.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, being follower of Sant Shri Asaramji became member of OP No.1 and that is why membership No.170 was allotted to her. Plot No.202 measuring 200 sq. yards was allotted to complainant by OP No.3, then President of OP Society.  Allotment letter dated 12.03.2002 was issued under signatures of OP No.3.   OP Society was formed with the object of establishing Ashram alongwith residential colony for the life members of the Society within the revenue limits of village Seonk, Tehsil Kharar.  On demand of  Rs.1.00 lakh for allotment of individual plots of 200 sq. yards alongwith development charges of Rs.50,000/-, complainant deposited these amounts with the OPs for allotment of  200 sq. yards of plot. Rs. 60,000/- to be deposited as life membership, but Rs.30,000/- as development charges for allotment of 100 sq. yards of plot by individual member each.  No plot has been developed by OPs.  Actual physical possession of the plot even has not been delivered, despite the fact that possession certificates have been issued by OPs on issue of allotment letter itself. Possession of the plot was to be handed over after carrying of development and raising of necessary infrastructure in the residential colony. OP society raised huge construction of Satsang   Ashram adjoining the spot and even raised other types of construction,   but the site underneath the promised plot is still under cultivation of crops.   Development work not carried out for raising necessary infrastructure.   Rather funds received from the life members like complainant have been diverted and misused for raising Ashram and other infrastructure around the Ashram which adjoin plots. OPs failed to refund received amount of Rs.1,50,000/- despite issue of letter through which assurance for refund given by OPs. Though promise for issue of refund cheque given, but no such refund cheque has been received by complainant. Decision taken by Managing Committee in its meetings has never been communicated to complainant at any point of time. Despite repeated efforts by complainant and other allottees, refund cheque has not been handed over to complainant and others. Market value of the plot is not less than Rs.50 to 80 lakhs. It is claimed that there is manifold increase in construction cost and as such complainant has suffered huge loss on account of this due to non delivery of actual possession of the allotted plot. It is also claimed that complainant has suffered mental harassment and agony. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to handover actual physical possession of plot. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.15.00 lakhs also claimed. In case it is found that actual physical possession of the plot could not be delivered, then direction sought to OPs to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of paid amount till realisation.

2.             No reply by OP No.1 and 2  filed in 45 days, but in reply filed by OP No.4, it is claimed that complaint is barred by limitation because subscription fee was deposited in 2002, but the present complaint filed after gap of more than 13 years in 2015, due to which as per provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, complaint is barred by limitation. Moreover, it is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because claimed amount exceeds limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs. Moreover, complainant is not a consumer of OPs and she has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Rather the complaint alleged to be filed as pressure tactic for extracting money from Samiti. As per Clause-5 of letter of allotment, reference of the matter liable to be made to Chief Patron in the event of any dispute between members and Managing Committee and as such complaint alleged to be not maintainable before this Forum. Complainant has failed to prove her ownership of the plot, whose possession is being claimed.  Civil court alone has jurisdiction. Complainant was entitled to built up sadhana kutir only and not the plot in question. Property to remain of Samiti, but life members to pay development charges as per Clause-3 of letter of allotment. Civil suit filed by some of the persons is pending in the court of Ms. Ekta Uppal, Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kharar. Subject matter of that suit is the same as is the subject matter of this complaint and as such principles of res sub judice are attracted. Managing Committee of the Samiti is performing functions strictly as per law and the prescribed procedure. Admittedly, Sant Shri Asharamji Ashram and Bhagat Kutir Samiti purchased land in village Soonak, Tehsil Kharar with the contribution not of the complainant alone, but of the others also for giving privilege to life members of the Samiti to do meditation and yoga within the premises of Ashram/Samiti, but as per plan of the society. Managing Committee approved the life membership of 487 members, on receipt of part or full subscription of Rs.1.00 lakh from enrolled life members. There is no provision in the bye laws of the Samiti for refund of subscription fee deposited by the members voluntarily. Details of the received amounts from life members even were submitted to the Income Tax Department and nothing was kept concealed. About 484 members deposited subscription fee for life membership. Some of the members paid full fee, but others paid part of the subscription fee. This subscription fee is not the price of land. Life members were allotted piece of land for construction of sadhna kutir only. Every life member was required to pay Rs.1,000/- annually as membership fee, failing which membership to cease automatically. In case a member of the society or the Managing Committee fails to attend three consecutive meetings without applying for leave for absence, then cessation of membership to take place as per Rule 17 (ii) of the rules and regulations of the society. Complainant has not been attending general body meetings consecutively since long and nor she paid the annual membership fee and as such she automatically ceased to be a life member.  Samiti applied to Govt. of Punjab for CLU for permission for carrying of construction on the land, where kutirs were to be constructed, but Govt. refused to grant permission and that is why construction was stopped at the site. Land of the Samiti falls within the forest area and as such due to legal implications, Managing Committee of the Samiti decided through resolution dated 19.09.2004 that no construction of kutirs will be carried out regarding which intimation through post will be given to life members. Ministry of Environment and Forests of Govt. of India was pleased to grant approval for delisting land falling in area of village Soonk, but subject to certain conditions contained in Clause-5 (a). As per that approval, State Govt. to ensure that no commercial activity is permitted on the delisted land. Delisted land will be used only for bonafide agriculture purpose and for sustaining livelihood by the owners of the land as per granted approval. In view of said granted approval by Govt. of India, Govt. of Punjab issued notification dated 24.08.2011 for delisting the land as forest land of village Soonk including the land of Samiti. Land owned by Samiti as such can be utilized only for the purpose of agriculture. No construction can be carried on the land owned by Samiti as per conditions imposed by Govt. of India and Punjab Govt. These conditions were imposed by Govt. of Punjab in view of orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As and when the Samiti came to know about these legal implications, then it decided not to raise any construction in future on this land, but to refund the membership fee of the life members, who wants to surrender membership. Decision in this regard was reiterated in the meeting of the Managing Committee. Samiti also decided on 02.11.2013 to make some alternate arrangement for life members for doing their sadhna including lodging, boarding free of cost in the premises of ashram for specific period in a year. In view of general house resolution of the Samiti dated 05.01.2014, OP Samiti refunded subscription fee deposited for bhagat kutir to atleast 348 persons. Letters were sent to the remaining persons for taking refund. Samiti has no malafide intentions because it has offered refund to all life members and as such it is claimed that complainant is at liberty to have refund of the subscription fee. OP Samiti is ready to refund the amount of subscription fee etc. deposited by complainant. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.             In separate reply filed by OP No.3, it is claimed that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because she not only has distorted the factual position, but even suppressed facts. Plea of bar of limitation in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act also raised. Complainant has restricted her claim for refund of alleged deposited amount in 2002 and as such complaint filed on 16.10.2015 is barred by limitation. Allegations regarding recurring cause of action available to complainant denied because complainant has sought refund of the paid amount now. Once complainant restricts her claim for refund of the deposited amount in 2002, then this means that she waived of her claim for possession of the plot and as such it is claimed that issue of letter dated 24.12.2014 does not provide cause of action to complainant for filing this complaint.  Moreover, OP No.3 has no connection with the alleged letter dated 24.12.2014 because his term as President of OP No.1 society expired on 15.03.2012. Complaint could have been filed upto 11.03.2004 only because of bar of two years in filing such complaint envisaged by Section 24-A (2) of Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service on part of OP No.3 and complainant is not consumer of OP No.3 even. OP No.3 was elected/nominated as President of OP No.1 society for period of three years from 16.03.1999 to 15.03.2012 and thereafter new committee was constituted due to which OP No.3 ceased to have concern with OP No.1 society. OP No.3 was holding a temporary post of President of society for three years as per memorandum of association of OP No.1 society. It is claimed that now OP No.3 is not member of Managing Committee of OP No.1 society even. Complainant paid subscription fee towards life membership and not towards allotment/purchase of plot as per various clauses of allotment letter. There is no agreement for sale of plot. Allotment letter dated 12.03.2002 was signed by OP No.3 on behalf of society only during his tenure as President. Even allotment letter does not make mention of sale of plot for consideration. OP No.3 is not liable for refund of subscription fee of life membership. No demand for refund of subscription fee was put forth by complainant and nor any assurance for developing the plot or for providing best facilities or modern infrastructure for the residential colony was given by OP No.3. Complainant has staked claim for possession of plot of Rs.70.00 lakhs, being market value and as such complaint alleged to be not maintainable in this Forum.

4.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-5 and thereafter her counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1, 2, and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-4/1 of Shri Ashish Mittal, Office Secretary and thereafter closed evidence.  Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 of Yashwant Krishan Mittal and closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments submitted by the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Rs.1,50,000/- were returned by OP No.1, 2, and 4 as membership fee and tentative development charges to complainant as revealed by suffered statement of 03.05.2016 by counsel for complainant. As the cheque in that respect was accepted subject to realisation and as such it is obvious that virtually the membership fee amount and tentative development charges have been refunded to complainant by OP No.1, 2 and 4 after cancelling her membership. Through complaint also refund of membership fee and development charges of Rs.1,50,000/- alone sought and as such it is obvious that complaint regarding refund of membership fee and development charges of Rs.1,50,000/- has become infructuous, but as this amount refunded after lot of struggle by complainant by way of filing this complaint on 16.10.2015 and as such certainly complainant entitled for amount of compensation and litigation expenses as per overall facts and circumstances of the present case. Allotment letter Ex.C-1 was issued in favour of complainant on 12.03.2002 on deposit of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards life membership and Rs.50,000/- towards tentative development charges  of OP No.1 society for allotment of sadhna kutir area of 200 sq. yards of plot No.202. Clause No.7 of this allotment letter Ex.C-1 itself provides that members will abide by rules and regulations of the Samiti from time to time. So it is obvious that rules and regulations of the Samiit govern the case regarding matter of actual handing over of possession of sadhna kutir or of the site thereof to complainant.

6.             As amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited on 12.03.2002 as evidenced by Ex.C-1 and as such it is vehemently contended that notice Ex.C-2 dated 24.12.2014 for refund of amount cannot be used for staking a time barred claim. This complaint filed on 16.10.2015 i.e. after more than 13 years and 8 months of deposit of amount, refund of which is sought and as such complaint alleged to be barred by limitation altogether in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. That submission of counsel for OPs has no force because it was OPs themselves who refunded the amount to complainant during pendency of complaint and as such virtually OPs acknowledged their liability of refunding the amount and that is why they did so. Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act provides that an agreement without consideration will not be void, if it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits.  As in this case amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- refunded by issue of cheque by authorised representative of OP No.1 and as such certainly the said cheque being in writing and signed by authorised person virtually was for acknowledging liability of refunding the membership fee. It is also the case of OPs that membership fee to others, also has been refunded and if the same has been refunded to others then why not to complainant before filing of this complaint, the same itself shows that complainant had to resort to this litigation, being not equally treated with others, having similar interest. So in view of Section 25 (3) of Indian Contract Act, liability of refund is enforceable, more so when payment has already been made. Being so, complaint certainly is not barred by limitation for seeking refund of the deposited membership fee. All arguments to the contrary has no force at all.

7.             Some other similarly placed members of OP No.1 society got a fraud complaint registered with Chandigarh Police, is a fact borne from police complaint slip Ex.C-4 produced on record in this respect and as such it is obvious that complainant and others claimed themselves to be cheated by OPs by accepting membership fee from them, but without providing promised accommodation. However, the entire fault for non providing of accommodation cannot be attributed to OPs because the evidence produced on record establishes that in view of directions issued by the courts and the Governmental authorities, the site could not be developed for construction of promised kutirs for long time. So it is not a case of total inaction on part of OPs, in rendering due services to complainant.

8.             If membership fee was deposited in 2002, then refund notice Ex.C-2 was sent by OPs to complainant for informing, as to on account of which circumstances, construction could not be carried out. In Ex.C-2 itself it is mentioned that in view of orders dated 09.09.2005 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in IA No.976, IA No.727 and Notification dated 16.03.2006 of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, land underneath the kutir site was first notified as forest area due to which construction could not be carried out. Further contents of this notice Ex.C-2 itself shows that in view of further notification of Govt. of Punjab, it has become unfeasible for OP No.1 Samiti to raise construction on land purchased by Samiti and that is why management of OP No.1 Samiti has taken a decision to refund the amount received from the members. Issue of this notice Ex.C-2 by OP No.1 through its authorised representative namely Office Secretary enough to establish that OP No.1 through its authorised representative acknowledged in writing its liability of refunding the amount after finding that the construction cannot be carried on the spot by complainant or anybody else. So the project for which the site was allotted to complainant became unfeasible or could not be developed due to Governmental notification and the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Being so, fault in non development of the project or non raising of construction is not attributable to OPs at all because they themselves have to abide by directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the notification issued by Govt. of India and that of the Punjab Govt. As despite issue of refund notice Ex.C-2, refund in this case took place on 03.05.2016 and as such certainly fault lay with OP No.1 in withholding amount of Rs.1,50,000/- arbitrarily upto 03.05.2016. So complainant entitled to be compensated by way of awarding of interest (@ 12% P.A. simple) on this already refunded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for period from 24.12.2014 to 03.05.2016. As complainant became member of OP No.1 society at her own by depositing membership fee and development charges and as such liability of refunding the amount remains of OP No.1 through its authorised representative or through the Incharge/President, whosoever may be at present. Remaining OPs acted as agents of OP No.1 either being President or Ex-President or Office Secretary and as such liability of paying interest and the litigation expenses remains of OP No.1 society being principal.

9.             Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act provides that contracts entered into through an agent and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, as it has been entered into by the principal in person. Such contracts will have the same legal consequences   as if they are entered by principal in person as per Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act. It is not a case in which OP No. 2 to 4 or any of them pocketed membership fee  and development charges of Rs.1,50,000/- for their personal use and benefit and as such liability of OP No.1 for refunding the amount or paying interest remains as of principal and not of its agents. So certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP No.3 has force that the liability on account of deficiency in service, if any, cannot be fastened on the agents of OP No.1. Being so, relief liable to be granted against OP No.1 only, being principal and not against agents. However, for enforcement of liability on the basis of this order, Incharge/President of OP No.1 of the society will be liable to refund the due amounts by taking steps in that respect.

10.            Rules and regulations of OP No.1 society are produced on record as Annexure R-2. As per rule 4 (d) any person, who is an ardent follower of Sant Shri Asaramji and has good character, may by way of subscription fee can become a life member. Further as per this Clause 4 (2) of the rules and regulations of OP No.1 society, life members will be given a privilege to construct  Sadhna Kutir  within the premises as per plan of the society, but from his/her own resources. So in view of this rule, it is obvious that complainant on becoming life member of OP No.1 society was to be provided site underneath the Sadhna Kutir, to be constructed by her with her own resources. Purpose of providing of this Sadhna Kutir   was for enabling complainant to do meditation. Memorandum of association of OP No.1 Samiti provides that the same formed with object of establishing, constructing and maintaining an Ashram and Bhagat Kutir for meditation and spiritual upliftment of Sadhaks of Sant Asaramji and public at large. These aims and objectives further provides for conveying the holy message of Sant Asaramji Bapu amongst the followers and to inspire the people spiritually for imparting spiritual education and for spreading spiritual message.  So, from all this  it is obvious that Sadhna Kutir  site was allotted to complainant on becoming member of OP No.1 Samiti for raising construction of Sadhna Kutir  therein, so that she as an ardent follower of Sant Asaramji, may meditate there and convey the holy message of Sant Asaramji. As the main object was to impart spiritual education and spread spiritual message and as such site of the Sadhna Kutir   was allotted to complainant not for earning any profit or for exclusive residential or business purposes. Rather the site was allotted to complainant for doing meditation so as to attain mental solace and even spread the message of spirituality. In view of these aims and objects of OP No.1 society, it is obvious that OP No.1 society agreed to provide accommodation not for exclusive use as owner by complainant, but the same was provided for limited purpose of doing meditation and spreading spiritual message. This life membership certainly to be inherited by the family members and as such limited right was conferred on complainant. Absolute ownership right regarding the site allotted to complainant, never granted and as such complainant to go by the traditions and usage of OP No.1 and its Chief Patron Sant Asaramji, as an ardent follower thereof. Being so, complainant cannot be allowed the same monetary benefits, as may be available due to deficiency in service to an ordinary consumer, having no motive of purchasing property for meditation purposes or for conveying message of spirituality. In view of limited interest of complainant, liability of OPs should be fixed according to the extent of actual deficiency and not of hypothecated deficiency.

11.            Perusal of Annexure R-1 reveals that civil suit for possession of plots was filed by Subhash Khetarpal and others against OP No.1 and others by mentioning the aims and objectives of OP No.1 society alongwith terms of memorandum of association of OP No.1 society referred above. Copy of the rules and regulations of OP No.1 society is Annexure R-2 and that of the resolution dated 19.09.2014 of OP No.1 society produced is Annexure R-3. Through Annexure R-3 certain resolutions were passed for the convenience of life members and copy of the proceeding book produced as Annexure R-4. Copy of notification issued by Govt. of Punjab dated 24.08.2011 is produced on record as Annexure R-5. Perusal of this Annexure R-5 itself reveals that the land of village Sunk earlier was declared as forest land, due to which prohibition was envisaged for carrying on construction thereon. Perusal of Para No.3 of Annexure R-5 itself reveals that Govt. of Punjab filed an affidavit dated 21.02.1997 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the pending Civil Writ Petition for disclosing details of action taken for cessation of non forest activities in the forest area. Reference to IA No.976 in IA No.727 pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is made in Para No.4 and 5 of Annexure R-5. Perusal of Para No.5 of Annexure R-5 reveals that Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India vide notification dated 16.03.2006 conveyed in principal its approval to de-list  76,670.26 ha. of cultivated habitation area under Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. However, for saving land for agricultural use and for earning livelihood for agricultural community, State Govt. undertook to ensure that no commercial activity will be permitted in the de-listed land. Even undertaking was submitted by Govt. of Punjab that de-listing will be for bonafide use for agriculture and for sustaining livelihood of people/owners of the land only. Detailed list of such de-listed land is given in Annexure R-5 itself. The land underneath the proposed kutirs as such was found under the preservation of forest land area earlier and that is why owing to restriction in raising construction, the same could not be carried out. However, as the use of de-listed land can take place only for agricultural purposes and for enabling the agriculturists to earn livelihood and as such submission advanced by counsel for OPs has force that OP No.1 cannot permit the complainant and other life members to raise construction on this de-listed forest land as per policy of the Govt. So if after cancellation of allotment, refund envisaged through resolution by way of issue of refund notice referred above, then OPs have not acted in an illegal manner at all. Rather OP No.1 through refund notice undertook to discharge the liability against those, from whom payments received by it.

12.            Annexure R-6 is copy of order dated 02.11.2015 passed by Registrar of Firms and Societies of Punjab. Perusal of Annexure R-6 reveals that on receipt of complaint from CBI against Sanchalak/Manager/Sewadar and permanent residents of Sant Asaramji Ashram, matter was probed and it was found that civil suit filed by complainants in court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kharar was pending for 23.11.2015. In Annexure R-6 itself it has been found that subscription fee deposited by life members is not price of the land, but it was the contribution by life members for charity works listed in the memorandum of association of OP No.1 society. In Annexure R-6 itself it has been found that complainants have not been attending general body meetings consecutively since long and nor paid annual subscription fee. CLU was not granted by the Govt. and that is why construction was stopped at the site of the land of the Samiti, falling in forest area. Reference to grant of approval by Govt. of India for use of delisted land for limited agricultural purpose also made in Annexure R-6. As the Registrar of Firms & Societies was not competent to interfere in the internal matters/disputes of society and its members, and as such aggrieved parties were directed to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances through those orders of 03.11.2015. So contents of Annexure R-6 also corroborates our above findings that though the land was acquired with intention of enabling the life members to construct Sadhna Kutirs, but construction thereof could not be raised owing to area falling under preserve  forest area. As the use of this forest area after de-listing can be for limited purposes for enabling the agriculturists to earn their livelihood and as such if OP No.1 society did not permit the complainant and others similarly placed persons to raise construction, despite issue of allotment letter, then no fault to OP No.1 can be attributed because of its hands being tied by directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as well as of Environment and Forest Ministry of Govt. of India and the instructions issued through notification of Punjab Govt. So fault lay with OP No.1 only in not refunding the membership fee even after issue of refund notice. However, complainant has been dragged in litigation and as such complainant entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- albeit, not to any amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment because deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 is not there exclusively, as discussed above. However, allowed interest @ 12% per annum on refunded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- should be paid by OP No.1 within specified period of 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant should be held entitled to further interest on the above referred amounts of interest and litigation expenses @ 7% per annum from today till payment.

13.            No other worth mentioning point argued.

14.            As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed against OP No.1 in terms that he (it) will pay interest @ 12% per annum (simple) on the already refunded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty thousand only) for the period from 24.12.2014 to 03.05.2016. Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only)  more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 only. Complaint against remaining OPs dismissed. It is made clear that whosoever will be the Incharge/President of OP No.1, he/she will be liable to refund the granted interest amount and litigation expenses. No amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment allowed. Payment of above referred amounts be made by OP No.1 within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant will be entitled to further interest on the above referred interest amount and litigation expenses @ 7% per annum from today till payment. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

September 21, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member