Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/79/2024

SHANTI DEVI & OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRA TECH LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

29 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	79 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	20.02.2024
Date of Decision	:	29.05.2024

 

 

 

 

1. Shanti Devi aged 75 years W/o Sh.Dharam Pal Sekhri,
2. Bishamber Dass Sekhri aged 41 years S/o Sh.Dharam Pal Sekhri Both R/o H.No.430, Sector-46-A, Chandigarh,
3. Vijay Bajaj aged 65 years W/o Sh.Parveen Kumar Bajaj R/o H.No.195, Sector-48-A, Chandigarh.
4. Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

1. TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director Sh.Ravinder Kumar Taneja.
2. TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Sales Office, TDI House, S.C.O. 678-679, Mohali-1, Sector-119 TDI Smart City, Mohali, through its AGM Sales & Marketing Sh.Bodh Raj Thakur.
3. Ravinder Kumar Taneja Managing Director TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
4. Rohit Gogia (C.E.O.) TDI House, S.C.O. 678-679, Mohali-1, Sector-119 TDI Smart City, Mohali
5. Akshay Taneja Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
6. Devki Nandan Taneja Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
7. Ved Prakash Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
8. Renu Taneja Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
9. Aditya Rungta Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
10. Amit Batra, the then Regional Head, TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Regional Office, TDI House, S.C.O. 678-679, Mohali-1, Sector-119 TDI Smart City, Mohali.

….Respondents/opposite parties

 

PRESENT:-

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellants alongwith appellant no.2 in person. Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for respondents-on VC

============================================================

 

Appeal No.	:	104 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	01.03.2024
Date of Decision	:	29.05.2024

 

 

 

 

TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director Sh.Ravinder Kumar Taneja.

• Appellant/opposite party no.1

V e r s u s

1.      Shanti Devi aged 71 years W/o Sh.Dharam Pal Sekhri,
2. Bishamber Dass Sekhri aged 37 years S/o Sh.Dharam Pal Sekhri Both R/o H.No.430, Sector-46-A, Chandigarh,
3. Vijay Bajaj aged 61 years W/o Sh.Parveen Kumar Bajaj R/o H.No.195, Sector-48-A, Chandigarh.
4.  

PRESENT:-

Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the appellant/opposite party no.1 (on VC) Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the  respondents alongwith respondent no.2 in person.

============================================================

 

BEFORE:- JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The above captioned appeals have arisen out of the common order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission only), whereby consumer complaint bearing no.385 of 2021 stood partly allowed by it, against the appellant/opposite party no.1 as under:-

“……Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.1 Company is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 (TDI Infra Tech Limited). Accordingly, the present complaint stands Partly Allowed against the OP No.1 (TDI Infra Tech Limited) with directions to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainants, having all basic facilities & amenities, subject to balance payment, if any. In case the OP No.1 Company is not in a position to deliver originally allotted plot in question to the complainants, in that eventuality, the OP NO.1 Company is directed to allot another plot of same size (250 sq. yards) in the same sector (Sector 118 Mohali) to the complainants, having all basic facilities & amenities, subject to balance payment, if any.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 Company within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 The complaint qua remaining OPs stands dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.....….”

2.           The appellant/opposite party no.1 (in short the company-TDI) has come up in  FA No.104 of 2024 (TDI Infratech Limited Versus Shanti Devi and others) with a prayer to set aside the impugned and on the other hand, the appellants/complainants have come up in FA No.79 of 2024 (Shanti Devi and others Versus TDI Infra Tech Limited and others) seeking modification of the relief awarded by the District Commission in the impugned order.

 

Facts of the consumer complaint:-

3.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainants that they have purchased a residential plot bearing No.587 measuring 250 sq. yards in TDI City, Sector 117-119, Mohali, Punjab being developed by the opposite parties. The said plot was earlier purchased by one Gurbaksh Kaur, who purchased it from one Amrik Singh (Annexure C-1) and thereafter it has been transferred in the name of the complainants on 12.11.2011 (Annexure C-5) after making due payments. Rs.50,000/- was paid as transfer charges by the complainants to the opposite parties, vide receipt dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure C-9 and C-10).  Apart from making payment to the previous owner and transfer charges to the opposite parties, the complainants further made payment of Rs.14 lacs to the opposite parties during period from April, 2011 to Oct., 2011 (Annexure C-12) and only thereafter the allotment of the plot in question was transferred on 12.11.2011 in their name. In this manner, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs.36,55,150/- to the opposite parties, against the plot in question. It was pleaded that despite receipt of amount mentioned in the complaint in respect of the plot in question, the opposite parties neither executed Buyer’s Agreement nor handed over possession of the plot to the complainants. It was pleaded that the opposite parties were selling the adjoining plots at the same location @Rs.34,500/- and in this way, the price of the plot comes out to be Rs.86,25,000/- which shows that the complainants have suffered huge loss. The complainants have approached the opposite parties a number of time and sent communications dated 18.11.2019 and 15.1.2020 (Annexure C-15 & C-16) to get the possession but the opposite parties are putting vague excuses.  Hence, consumer complaint was filed by the complainants before the District Commission with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to handover possession of the plot in question or any other plot at same location in same sector, along with interest for delayed possession as well as compensation and litigation expenses etc.

 

Written reply filed by the opposite parties no.1 to 8 and 10:-

4.           The complaint was contested by opposite parties no.1 to 8 and 10 by way of filing their joint written reply, wherein, while admitting the factual matrix of the case about allotment of the plot in question in favour of the complainants, in resale, in the manner stated in the complaint, it has been stated that opposite parties no. 2 to 8 and 10 were only the officials/officers of the Company.  As per the government policy, proposal of the Company to develop an area of 160 acres of land within village Ballo Majra (Mohali) for an investment of over Rs.266.50 Crores, was accepted by the Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Punjab and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the Company on 21.12.2005 (Annexure R-2). The Govt. of Punjab, apart from laying down certain conditions in the Letter of Intent, later on, vide an agreement executed with the Company accorded various concessions subject to certain conditions, one of them being that the residential project at the location specified must be of 100 acres or above at a single geographical location and shall be developed in contiguity. Further, the Govt. of Punjab also agreed to acquire the land for this project under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Company to the extent of 10% of the total area of the project as this was the main objective of the policy to develop the land.  The previous owner Mr.Amrik Singh transferred his registration rights in respect of the plot to another party namely Mrs.Gurbaksh Kaur after complying with all necessary formalities with the Company and furnished required documents and after approval of the layout plan on 25.03.2008, they were allotted residential plot No.587, measuring 250 sq. yds. in the forthcoming fully integrated township TDI City at Mohali on 28.05.2008 and the allotment of the plot made, was as per the tentative Layout Plans i.e. subject to variations &  additions.  Opposite party No.1 sent letter dated 09.01.2016 to the complainants to take an alternative plot but they did not approach. Thereafter, on 13.04.2017 (Annexure R-7) an intimation letter for taking the refund of the amount paid by the complainants was sent to them but the complainants did not respond. Denying all other allegations of the complainants and pleading no deficiency in service, prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

Opposite party no.9 exparte:-

5.           Opposite party no.9 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence he was proceeded exparte by the District Commission, vide order dated 25.7.2022.

 

Rejoinder:-

6.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those of the opposite parties no.1 to 8 & 10.
7.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
8.           The District Commission after considering the rival contentions of the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above.
9.           Hence these cross appeals.

Submissions of the parties:-

10.           Counsel for the company-TDI in FA No.104 of 2024 (TDI Infratech Limited Versus Shanti Devi and others) submitted that since the plot in question falls under critical gap area and it was not possible for the company to deliver possession thereof to the respondents/ complainants,  as such, they were requested to accept the alternative plot or in the alternative to take refund of the  amount paid with interest, yet, they were not ready to  do so and were adamant for delivery of possession of the plot in question only. He further submitted that the District Commission failed to notice that neither it vested with the territorial jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint nor the complaint was within limitation nor the respondents/complainants were consumers and are investors, yet, it proceeded further and entertained the consumer complaint, and as such, the order impugned needs to be set aside
11.           On the other hand, counsel for the appellants/complainants in FA No.79 of 2024 (Shanti Devi and others Versus TDI Infra Tech Limited and others) submitted that although the District Commission while passing the  impugned order has held that late delivery of possession of the plot in question, amounts to unfair and  unjustified and ordered possession of the plot in question or any alternative plot, yet, neither any compensation for mental agony nor any compensation by way of interest for the period of delay in possession and litigation expenses have been awarded. He further submitted that the plot in question still existed at the project site, which fact is also evident from the layout plan approved by the District and Chief Town Planner Punjab, Chandigarh, on 13.01.2023 (Annexure C-28), yet, the company-TDI deliberately did not disclose this fact to the District Commission or this Commission. He further submitted that though the company-TDI in their written statement have admitted that opposite parties no.2 to 10 are their Officers, who are looking after the affairs of the company, yet, order has been passed against opposite party no.1  only. He further submitted that as such the order of the District Commission needs modification.
12.           Record of the District Commission was requisitioned.
13.           During pendency of these appeals, the parties placed on record various documents and also photographs of the project site, which have been considered and taken on record by this Commission.
14.           We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have also gone through the entire record of this case.

 

Observations/findings of this Commission:-

 

Territorial Jurisdiction:-

15.           The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the District Commission was vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint out of which these appeals have arisen or not? It may be stated here that it is settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the Court/Tribunal/ Commission within the territorial limits of which that occurs. In the instant case, the District Commission was vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the main consumer complaint because of the following reasons:-

 

1. Terms and Conditions of allotment letter (at page 60 of the paper book) was signed by the complainants on 24.11.2012 at Chandigarh;
2. Payment receipt dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure C-9) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- was issued by the opposite parties from their Regional Office, SCO No.1098-1099, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh;
3. Payment receipt dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure C-109)  in the sum of Rs.5,150/- was also issued by the opposite parties from their Regional Office, SCO No.1098-1099, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

Under above circumstances, it can easily be said that the Company was actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on business from its Regional Office at Chandigarh. Thus, the District Commission at Chandigarh was having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the main consumer complaint. Objection taken by company-TDI in this regard stands rejected.

 

Merits of the case:-

16.           Now coming to the merits of the case, it may be stated here that the main dispute between the parties, is with regard to existence of plot no.587 at the project site, which had been purchased by the appellants/complainants in the project of the company-TDI. 

                   Counsel for the company-TDI while placing reliance on  CWP No.15651 of 2009 titled as Amrik Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and Others, has contended with vehemence that the plot bearing no.587 purchased by the appellants/complainants is not possession-able because it fell under the critical gap area and therefore the appellants/complainants are either at liberty to relocate them to some other plot or they can get their money back.

                   On the other hand, counsel for the appellants/complainants, while placing reliance on layout/revised plan dated 13.01.2023, Annexure C-28, having been prepared by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, Chandigarh has strongly contended that the plot in question is still in existence at the project site.  

                    First coming to the case Amrik Singh and others (supra), it may be stated here that we have gone through the contents of the said  case, and found that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 23.08.2018  has directed the State Government to decide as to whether the Notification issued by it for acquisition of the land in question is valid and pass appropriate order in that regard within a period of four months. It may be stated here that we have gone through the contents of Notification No.06/07/2013-6HGI/1407 dated 20.09.2021, Annexure C-29 which reveals that the Government of Punjab has withdrawn the acquisition proceedings for the land in question i.e. for 2.68125 acres i.e. 21 kanal 9 Marlas alongwith other land, as the company-TDI mutually exchanged land failing under the said acquisition with land owners and had requested the Govt. that the request for acquisition proceeded made by the company earlier, may be withdrawn. Similar notification No.07/01/2009-IHGI/1409 dated 20.09.2021, Annexure C-29 colly. qua withdrawing the acquisition proceedings for the land in question i.e. for 4.78125 acres i.e. 38 kanal 5 Marlas was also issued by the Government of Punjab. Furthermore, the appellant/opposite party no.1 in para no.9 of its appeal has stated that “the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development has declared the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 as valid…”. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the company-TDI from the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amrik Singh and others case (supra).

                   Now coming to the question as to whether plot bearing no.587 purchased by the appellants/complainants fell under any critical gap  or disputed  project land or not. It may be stated here that we have gone through the layout/revised plan dated 13.01.2023, Annexure C-28 having been approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, Chandigarh and found that plot no.587 alongwith some other plots have been highlighted in light yellow colour which indicates “Residential Area” and a note has been clearly appended by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, Chandigarh on this revised layout plan that the plots highlighted in the said colour has been approved now. Relevant part of the said note made on the layout/revised plan dated 13.01.2023, Annexure C-28 is reproduced hereunder:-

             

“…..NOTE:-

 

1. PLOTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE PROPER APPROACH ROAD AS PER NORMS SHALL NOT BE SOLD, IF ANY LEFT EVEN WITHOUT MARKING.
2. PLOTS UNDER ACQUISITION AREA/OTHER LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD
3. THE AREA IN DIM COLOUR SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED EARLIER, ONLY HIGHLIGHTED COLOURED PORTION IS BEEN APPROVED NOW.
4. ALTHOUGH DUE CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN IN APPROVING THE LAYOUT PLAN AS PER TECHNICAL NORMS AND TITLE OF LAND, BUT THIS APPROVAL IS NOT PROVIDING ANY RIGHT TO THE PROMOTER TO VIOLATE THE RULES/GUIDELINES OF THIS DEPARTMENT OR ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT AND ALSO NOT PROVIDE ANY RIGHT FOR ANY ILLEGAL SALE/CONSTRUCTION/ DEVELOPMENT, IN CASE ANY VIOLATION FOUND AT ANY STAGE, PROMOTER SHALL BE LIABLE TO GET THE LAYOUT REVISED ACCORDINGLY IMMEDIATELY….”

 

At the same time, in the said layout/revised plan dated 13.01.2023, Annexure C-28 some plot numbers have been marked in red colour and against them, it has been clearly written that the said plots cannot be sold or that they have been mortgaged with the GMADA, yet, we did not find any such remarks against plot no.587 i.e. the plot in question in the said layout plan. Thus, from the documents, referred to above, we are fully satisfied that plot no.587 is possession-able and its possession can be delivered to the appellants/complainants by the company-TDI.

17.           The plot in question was purchased by the appellants/complainants in resale as far as back in the year 2011 and now it is 2024 and still they are empty handed. It is also not in dispute that the entire sale consideration has been received by the company-TDI and the plot stood transferred in their name vide endorsement dated 12.11.2011, Annexure C-5.  One can well imagine the plight of the consumer in this situation. The company-TDI alongwith opposite parties no.2 to 10 who are admittedly the Officers of the company are therefore held deficient in providing service, negligent and also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice, which has caused a lot of mental agony, harassment and humiliation to the appellants/complainants. Hard earned money of the appellants/complainants has been utilized by the company-TDI for such a long time.  Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellants/complainants are entitled to get compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the said plot no.587, over and above, compensation for the mental  agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by them. The District Commission fell into a grave error in neither awarding any compensation to the complainants nor awarding any litigation expenses.

 

Compensation for the period of delay:-

18.           Now, coming to the question, as to what compensation should be granted to the appellants/complainants in this case for delay in delivery of possession of the plot in question, it  may be stated here that Consumer Protection Act has been made to safeguard the consumer rights. In the present case, failure of the  company-TDI to offer and deliver possession of the plot in question, for such an inordinate delay which is still continuing, amounts to deficiency in service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice. In the present case, it is clearly coming out from the document, Annexure C-4 that possession of the plot in question was to be delivered after completion of 14 months from the date of launch of the project in question. As stated above, from this the document, Annexure C-4 it has been proved that  total sale price of the plot in question stood already received by the company-TDI by 04.10.2011 itself. Thus, if we take a period of 14 months from the date of transfer of the plot in question i.e. from 12.11.2011, as period of completion of development works at the project site and delivery of possession of the plot in question to the appellants/complainants, it comes to 11.01.2013, that will meet the ends of justice. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil  Appeal  No.11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon’ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of actual physical possession. Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019,  by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora’s case (supra). Furthermore, in Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon’ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. Recently also, the Hon’ble National Commission in Anshuman Sinha & Anr. Versus M/s. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1245 of 2016, decided on 01 February 2024 has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. Relevant part of the  said order is reproduced hereunder:-

 

“…..Resultantly, the complaint is partly allowed in terms aforesaid to the extent that the opposite party shall pay delay compensation @ 9% p.a. on the total amount paid by the complainant with effect from 05.09.2011, that is expected date of delivery till the date of offer of possession, that is 24.12.2015 within a period of three months…”

 

Thus, in the present case also, if we grant interest @9% p.a. to the appellants/complainants on the entire amount deposited by them in respect of the plot in question, from 11.01.2013 (14 months from 12.11.2011), onwards till possession of the plot in question is actually delivered to them, that will meet the ends of justice.

 

Limitation:-

19.           Since it has been held above by this Commission that it is an admitted fact that possession of the plot in question has not been delivered to the appellants/complainants till date, as such, there was a continuing cause of action in their favour to file this complaint before the District Commission, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  wherein it was held that when actual physical possession of the residential units/plots is not delivered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. As such objection taken by the company-TDI in this regard stands rejected.
20.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the order impugned passed by the District Commission needs modification.

 

Relief/Award :-

21.           For the reasons recorded above, FA No.79 of 2024 titled as Shanti Devi and others Versus TDI Infra Tech Limited and others)  filed by the appellants/complainants stands partly allowed. The order passed by the District Commission in consumer complaint bearing no.385 of 2021 is modified and the company-TDI/respondents/opposite parties no.1 to 10, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

 

1. To hand over physical possession of the plot in question i.e. plot bearing no.587 measuring 250 square yards to the appellants/complainants in the project in question, complete in all respects, after obtaining completion certificate from the competent Authorities, within a period of two months (02 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.  
2. To pay to the appellants/complainants, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire amount paid by them in respect of the plot in question from 11.01.2013 (14 months from 12.11.2011) in one-go, till 31.05.2024 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount of compensation from 11.01.2013  to 31.05.2024 aforesaid shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the appellants/ complainants.
3. To pay to the appellants/complainants, compensation by way of  interest @9% p.a. on the entire received sale consideration, w.e.f. 01.06.2024, onwards (per month), by the 10^th of the following month till compliance of directions given in sub-para no.(i) above. 
4. To pay to the appellants/complainants, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing them mental agony and harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice; and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of  default till realization.

 

22.           Consequently, FA No.104 of 2024  titled as TDI Infratech Limited Versus Shanti Devi and others stands dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to the modification aforesaid.                       
23.           Pending applications, if any, in both these cases, stand disposed of, accordingly.
24.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost, forthwith and one copy thereof be placed in the connected file.
25.           The concerned files be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in these appeals, be sent back immediately..

 

Pronounced

29.05.2024

 

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

 Rg.