STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

         Mr.Tarun Gupta son of Jai Parkash Gupta and Reshu Gupta daughter of Arvind Gupta, both residents of House No.457, Sector-9, Panchkula, Haryana. 

                                                                        ….Complainants                                                                                                  Versus

1.   The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 
2.   M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 115, Ansal   Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2^nd address:  

    M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., SCO 183-84, Sector-9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3.   M/s Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited(HDFC Ltd), through its Authorized signatory/Managing Directors having branch office at SCO No.153-155, Sector-8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

                 Complaint  under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Argued by:     Sh.Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainants.

                        Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 &2

                        None for OP No.3

________________________________________________________________  

         Mrs.Arti Makkar wife of Anil Makkar and Anil Makkar son of Sh.Om Parkash Makkar,both residents of Flat No.605, Magnolia Tower, Mayfair Apartments, Sector-70,SASNagar (Mohali)

                                                                        ….Complainants 

                                                   Versus

1.   The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure       Ltd. 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New      Delhi. 
2.   M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 115, Ansal   Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2^nd address:  

    M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., SCO 183-84, Sector-9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3.   M/s Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited(HDFC Ltd), through its Authorized signatory/Managing Directors having branch office at SCO No.153-155, Sector-8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                                                                   ……Opposite Parties

                 Complaint  under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Argued by:     Sh.Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainants.

                        Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 &2

                        None for OP No.3

BEFORE:       MR.DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER  DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                      At the time of arguments on 19.6.2018, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties that facts involved in this complaint and connected complaint bearing No.32 of 2018, by and large, are the same, and, therefore, these complaints could be disposed of by passing one  consolidated order.  To dictate order, facts are being taken from complaint bearing No.09of2018

2.             In brief, the facts are that the complainants who are husband and wife required one house for their own use in or around Chandigarh, as such they approached API Broker’s office “Safeways Real Estate, Sector-44-C,Chandigarh” for purchasing a Unit in the project namely “Victoria Floors” at Ansal API Gold Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and booked one residential dwelling unit vide application dated 10.6.2011 under Subvention Scheme i.e. the financial Institution would have financed 80% of the total consideration amount and “no Pre-EMI/Interest till possession”. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 issued provisional allotment letter to the complainant on 10.6.2011 with customer code No.122989.A copy of the application-cum-Allotment letter is Annexure C-1. After issuing allotment letter, the complainants entered into an agreement with OP No.1 & 2 for purchasing the allotted Unit No.262 FF(Approx.1435 sq.ft area) in the Group Housing Project with a total price of Rs.41,60,720/- including External Development Charges and Preferential Location Charges on 26.5.2012. A copy of the agreement dated 26.5.2012 is Annexure C-2. Thereafter the complainants alongwith OP No.1 & 2 entered into a tripartite agreement with OP No.3 under Subvention Scheme and then loan of Rs.31,20,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainants. It was settled that OP No.1 & 2 have to pay interest part of the above said sanctioned amount to OP NO.3 till the day when OPs No.1 & 2 will hand over physical possession to the complainant. A copy of the tripartite Agreement dated 30.5.2013 is Annexure C-3. The complainants deposited from time to time an amount of Rs.9,61,982/- and Rs.29,25,000/-  respectively which constituted more than 90% of the total price of the Dwelling Unit. According to terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.5.2012, OPs No.1 & 2 were  to handover physical possession of the dwelling unit to the complainants within 30 months, with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. A copy of the Transaction statement/Customer Ledger with details of Rs.38,86,982/- issued by OPs No.1 & 2 on 11.11.2017 is Annexure C-4 and copies of receipts are Annexure C-5. OPs No.1 & 2 neither offered physical possession nor paid interest part of the loan amount sanctioned by OP No.3 due to which the complainant received default notices from OP No.3  on account of non-payment of interest amount. The construction work is incomplete and no development is going on. Till June,2016 the complainants did not know the exact status of construction about the above said project. The complainants visited OPs No.1 & 2 several times and sent emails but to no effect. The complainants then served upon OPs No.1 & 2 legal notice on 17.12.2017  seeking refund of the hard earned money. A copy of the legal notice dated 17.12.2017 is Annexure-C-6.  

 3.           Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1&2, the complainants filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking refund of Rs.38,86,982 with interest @18% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization; or in the alternative refund of Rs.9,61,982/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the respective dates of deposits and to pay the entire loan amount sanctioned by OP No.3 amounting to Rs.31,20,000/- alongwith interest  and get the NOC from OP No.3,  Rs.3,00,000/-  as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides Rs.75,000/- as litigation charges.

4.        The Opposite PartiesNo.1 & 2, in their joint written version, have taken objection that the complainants did not fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the said investment in the property of the Opposite Parties is purely for commercial/speculative purposes instead of personal use. The answering OPs admitted allotment of Unit No.262 FF in “Victoria Floors” project in the name of the complainants against receipt of amount of Rs.38,86,982/-.   It was further stated that the clause mentioned in the Agreement only gave a tentative period for delivering possession of the allotted unit and did not give a fixed period of time for the possession.  It was further stated that OPs No.1 &2 have been making payments of the pre-EMI interest to OP No.3 from time to time amounting to Rs.25,160/-per month.   It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.                Opposite Party No.3, in its preliminary submissions, in the written statement, stated that the grievance of the complainants is directed only against Opposite Parties No.1&2, who allegedly failed to fulfill their commitments in terms of Floor Buyer’s Agreement and the complainants are aggrieved of the delay in handing over of possession of the flat. It was further stated that as regards the finance advanced by it (HDFC Ltd.) is concerned, the rights of the parties of the present lis are governed by the loan agreement (Annexure OP-3/3) and tripartite agreement (Annexure OP-3/1). It was further stated that in case of cancellation of the unit or in the contingency of termination of the Buyer’s Agreement, HDFC Ltd. has the first charge/right to seek apportionment of its dues. It was further stated that the loan account of the complainant is irregular and Opposite Party No.3 reserved its right to proceed in accordance with the terms of the Tripartite Agreement and the Loan Agreement.

6.                On merits, it was stated that Loan of Rs.31,20,000/- was availed by the complainants on 25.05.2013 and a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the complainants, OPs No.1 & 2 and the answering OP on 8.3.2013.   It was further stated that as per Cause 3 of the Tripartite Agreement, the Builder and borrower has made some arrangement regarding the liability of payment, whereof, the builder is liable to pay Pre-EMI during the 24 months of Liability period to the answering OP.   The remaining averments were denied being wrong and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

7.              The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

8.              We have heard Counsel for the parties, and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.

9.           The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, to the effect that the complainants did not fall within the definition of “Consumer”, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the said property was bought by the complainants merely for speculation and not for any personal use,  deserves rejection. The complainants in para No.1 of the complaint clearly stated that they required one house for their own use in or around Chandigarh.  It may be stated here that there is nothing, on  record, that the complainants are the property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by  the  Opposite Parties that the  complainants being investor/speculator, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only this,  in a case titled as  Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder, while holding as under:-

“In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots.  A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots.  In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members.  A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city.  A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house.  Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose.”

               The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The  complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

10.           Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since it was mentioned in the Agreement that the Company shall “endeavour” to deliver possession of the unit within a period of 30 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and, as such, time was not the essence of contract, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Clause 5.1 of the Agreement (Annexure C-2), which was signed between the parties, that the Company shall endeavour to complete the development of residential colony and the dwelling unit as far as possible within 30 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or the date of sanction of the building plan, whichever falls later. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the Opposite Parties failed to prove that due to force majeure circumstances, the possession was delayed, which was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the Opposite Parties or any other valid and legal reason beyond their control, the stand taken by them, in this regard, for condonation of delay in delivery of possession of the unit, to the complainants, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, under these circumstances, since as per Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, time was,  unequivocally made the essence of contract.

11.                Even otherwise, the Opposite Parties cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the word tentative/ proposed was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit and, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. Non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement, is an unfair trade practice, on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making endeavour to deliver possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of the Opposite Parties in this regard also stands rejected.

12.       Another objection, which the Counsel for Opposite Parties1&2  raised during the course of arguments, was that  as per Clause 11.2 of the Agreement, all and any disputes, suits, complaints, litigation, claim or any other matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, shall be resolved by the Courts where the land is located i.e. Mohali and High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It may be stated here that according to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant(s), before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within  the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him/her. Clearly, the application form for allotment dated 10.06.2012 (Annexure C-1), was signed by the complainants at Chandigarh. Receipts Annexure C-5 at page- 56,59 and 60(of the complaint) were issued  by Opposite Parties from their  Chandigarh office situated at SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg,  Chandigarh. Since, as per documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII (2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case.

13.              In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC), the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainants had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts, referred to above, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to them, to file the complaint. The argument of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.           During arguments, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1&2 admitted payment of Rs.9,61,982/- by the complainants and further payment of Rs.29,25,000/- by raising loan from the HDFC Limited. Thus in all a sum of Rs.38,86,982 has been paid by the complainants.  As per Clause 3 of the Tripartite Agreement,  Opposite Parties No.1&2 assumed the liability of payments under the loan agreement as payable by the borrower to HDFC during 24 months ( the period  be referred to as “liability period” and liability be referred to as the “assumed liability”). It was however, agreed that during the liability period, the repayment liability is joint and several by and between the Borrower and the Builder.  It is evident from Annexure OP-3/2 that  HDFC has already received the following amount of Pre-EMI  interest/additional interest from Opposite Parties No.1&2.

The outstanding loan amount including all dues  as on 9.2.2018 as per letter dated 9.2.2018 of HDFC at page 26 of written statement of Opposite Party No.3 is as under:-

15.          The core question which falls for consideration is whether there is delay in offering possession of the unit in question and whether the complainants are entitled to refund of the deposited amount. Admittedly, the unit NO. 262FF admeasuring 1435 Sq. ft.  in the project of the Opposite Parties NO.1&2 was allotted to the complainants and Floor Buyer’s Agreement  was executed between the complainants and Opposite Parties No.1&2 on 26.5.2012 (Annexure C-2). Against the total sale price of Rs.41,60,720/-, the complainants made payment in the sum of Rs.38,86,982 in the manner indicated above. As per Clause 5.1 of the agreement, Company was to complete  development of the unit in question,  as far as possible within 30  months  with extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the said agreement or the date of sanction of the building plan whichever falls later.  In the absence of date on which the building plan was approved which could only be furnished by Opposite Parties No.1&2, the date of  execution of agreement viz 26.5.2012  has to be taken as date for calculating the stipulated period of 36 months for offering possession. The possession of the unit in question was thus to be offered/delivered by Opposite Parties No.1&2 by  25.5.2015. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question,   has still not been offered/delivered. There is thus inordinate delay of around 3 years in offering/delivering  possession of the unit in question.

16.              By making a misleading statement that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement, Opposite Party Nos. 1&2 failed to abide by the commitments and, as such were, clearly deficient in rendering service.

17.           This Commission in the case of Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, in the light of law settled by Hon’ble National Commission in such cases, held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited with the Opposite Party. Relevant Paras of the aforesaid judgment read thus:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the  complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the  complainants to accept the same. It was so held by the National Commission in Emaar MGF   Land   Limited   and   another   Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). Recently also, under similar circumstances, in the case of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the  complainant was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. It is therefore held that the  complainants could not be held guilty, of filing the present complaint, seeking refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest and compensation, as possession of the unit was not offered to them by the stipulated date.

18.          It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. Recently in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015 decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder while holding as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainant that considering the default on the part of the Opposite Party in performing its contractual obligation, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and, therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him alongwith reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

19.            The position in the instant case is worst. On getting no response qua offer/delivery of possession of the unit, in question, the complainants sent legal notice to Opposite Parties No.1&2 on 17.12.2017 through registered post (Annexure C-6). However, despite receipt of the said legal notice, Opposite Parties  No.1&2 failed to  offer/deliver possession of the unit, in question. Even the legal notice aforesaid was not replied to. The Opposite Parties  No.1&2 thus misrepresented the complainants that possession was to be delivered within 36 months.. The deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by Opposite Parties No.1&2 is writ large. The genuine hopes of the complainants to have a house have been shattered to ground and they are residing in rented accommodation. Therefore, the complainants are held entitled to refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest from the dates of respective deposits. Opposite Party No.3 is also entitled to refund of sum  of Rs.29,80,016.00.

20.              It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainants. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, which was to be delivered within the stipulated period i.e. by 25.5.2015, has not been delivered till date. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 38,86,982/- (Rs.9,61,982/-+29,25,000) was paid by the complainants to Opposite Parties No.1&2, without getting anything, in lieu thereof except that Pre-EMI interest in the sum of Rs.7,40,886/- was paid to HDFC Limited (OP No.3) under the Tripartite  Agreement. The amount  paid by the complainants has been used by Opposite Party Nos.1&2, for its own benefit. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. It was also so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainants are held entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, alongwith interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the respective dates of deposits till realization. OP No.1&2 are also held liable to refund Rs.29,80,016.00 to HDFC Ltd. (OP No.3) which was due as on 09.02.2018  and the interest which  has accrued/ shall be  accruing w.e.f. 9.2.2018 onwards  till the date the amount is refunded.  Ops No.1&2 shall refund the amount(s) alongwith interest, in the manner indicated above.

21.           In the first instance OP No.1&2 shall discharge its liability qua OP No.3, and get  a ‘No Dues Certificate issued from OP No.3 to the complainants. 

22.              The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to them. Clearly possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainants till date, on account of which, they (complainants) suffered mental agony and physical harassment. The compensation in the sum of Rs.3 Lacs, claimed by the complainants, is somewhat on the higher side. In our opinion, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in providing service, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- if granted, would be adequate to serve the ends of justice.

23.                In the connected complaint  bearing No. 32 of 2018, Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 8.7.2011,  the due date for handing over possession was 7.7.2014.  During arguments, Counsel for the  complainants stated that complainants have paid a sum of Rs.8,57,085/- from their own sources A sum of Rs.28,08,900/- out of sanctioned loan as per version of Opposite Party No.3 was disbursed/paid. As on 22.2.2018, a  sum of Rs.28,80,700/-  is due against  the loan, as per the following break up:-

       In this case also HDFC has also discharged its liability in paying Pre-EMI installments and the amount so  paid is as under:-

24.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties 

25.          For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted with costs against Opposite Parties No. 1&2 only and Opposite Parties No.1&2 are held liable and directed as under:-

     (i)   to refund an amount of Rs.9,61,982/- in CC No.9 of   2018 and Rs.8,57,085/- in CC No.32 of 2018 along with interest @12% p.a. to the complainants(paid by them from their own sources) from the respective dates of deposit onwards within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry penal interest @ 15% instead of 12% from the date of default i.e. after the expiry of 45 days,till realization.

(ii)   Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall also disburse/refund an amount of Rs.29,80,016/-(in CC No.9 of 2018) and Rs.28,80,007/- in (CC No.32 of 2018) to OP No.3(HDFC Ltd.). The aforesaid amounts were outstanding as on 9.2.2018 and 22.2.2018 respectively.  The interest which has accrued thereafter till date and which shall be further accruing till the amount is disbursed/refunded to OP No.3(HDFC Ltd.), same shall also be payable by Opposite Parties No.1& 2 to OP No.3(HDFC Ltd.). In that event, OP No.3 will issue Loan Clearance Certificate/No Due Certificate to the complainants, upon which, they shall sign all necessary documents relating to transfer of right of the Unit in dispute in favour of Opposite Parties No.1& 2.

              OP No.3 will have first lien on the amounts awarded to the extent of outstanding loan amount plus interest which shall be accruing till the amounts are refunded to OP No.3

(iii) Opposite Parties No.1& 2 shall pay compensation in the sum of Rs.one lakh in each case for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.33,000/- in each case, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the respective complaints, till realization.

26.           The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 (HDFC Ltd.) is dismissed, with no order as to costs.  

27.              Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

28.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.