Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/8/2016

Kulbir Singh Dogra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mukand Gupta, Geeta Gupta, Adv.

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	08 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	01.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	31.03.2016

 

1. Kulbir Singh Dogra
2. Anju Dogra wife of Kulbir Singh Dogra

Residents of House No.3194, Sector 49-D, Pink Rose Enclave, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

Versus

1. Unitech Limited, Regional Office, S.C.O. No.189-190-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

2. Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (marketing), 5^th Floor, Signature Tower, South Estate I, National Highway 8, Gurgaon through its Authorised Signatory.

3. H.D.F.C. Limited, S.C.O. no.153-155, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

              .... Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

                    Mrs. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for Opposite     Parties No.1 & 2.

                    Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, Proxy for Ms. Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

 

            The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Parties floated a residential housing project called ‘Unitech City Mohali’ and invited applications from intending buyers. It was stated that complainant No.1 being in dire need of a house for his personal use, applied for one flat i.e. Flat No.164 measuring 160 sq. meters/191.36 sq. yards (say 1010 Sq. feet) in Block-B, Sector 107, Mohali, with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide application dated 15.6.2009, at their office at Chandigarh. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 issued allotment letter in favour of complainant No.1 on 24.6.2009 (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that complainant No.1 deposited first installment of Rs.1,67,650/- with Opposite Party No.1 vide receipt Annexure C-4. It was further stated that a Flat Buyer’s Agreement was executed between complainant No.1 and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 27.10.2009 (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement, the basic sale price of the flat was Rs.23,23,150/- and by including EDC and preferential location charges, the total price came to be Rs.27,34,777/-. It was further stated that the payment plan opted was construction linked plan and the payment was to be made only when Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 raised the construction. It was further stated that in the payment plan, no specific due dates for payment were provided. It was further stated that complainant No.1 paid the following amounts to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2:-

Sr. No.	Date of payment	Amount paid (Rs.)	Receipt/Annexure
1.	24.06.2009	1,67,650.00	C-4
2.	25.02.2010	1,00,000.00	C-7
3.	13.02.2013	3,00,000.00	C-8
4.	01.03.2012	16,02,244.00	C-9 By taking home loan)
5.	26.08.2013	1,16,157.00	C-10
6.	26.08.2013	3,589.00	C-11
Total		22,89,640.00

 

Thus, the total payment made by the complainants to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 was in the sum of Rs.22,89,640/-.

It was further stated that complainant No.1 also took home loan from Opposite Party No.3 (HDFC Limited) in order to purchase the flat, in question, on 06.01.2010 and is paying interest to the Bank @10.50% per annum. It was further stated that initially, the flat was booked by complainant No.1 but thereafter, the name of complainant No.2 was added, on the request of complainant No.1, which Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 duly accepted on 26.06.2012.      

2.         It was further stated that despite payment of 98% of the basic sale price of the flat, in question, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not complete the construction, as there are no internal electricity fittings, no internal plumbing work done, rather there is incomplete work of external plastering, walls and flooring. It was further stated that as per Clause 4 of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement, possession of the flat was to be delivered by 27.10.2012, whereas till date Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to complete the construction and also failed to hand over the possession. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 threatened the complainants, to cancel the allotment of the flat, in case the balance amount was not paid. It was further stated that photographs taken by the complainants on 02.03.2013, 28.08.2013 and 18.04.2014, showing incomplete construction of the flat, have been annexed as Annexures C-15 to C-17 respectively. It was further stated that the complainants served a legal notice dated 14.05.2015 upon Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 but to no avail.

3.         It was further stated that till date, the competent authority has not given even the completion and occupation certificate in favour of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, so as to enable them to handover possession of the flat to the complainants. It was further stated that even the revised zoning plan was got approved by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 from the office of Chief Town Planner in the year 2011. It was further stated that the complainants never refused to pay the balance installments of the flat but since Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement and also failed to deliver possession of the flat, they (complainants) were compelled to file the instant complaint.

4.           It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2  to give actual physical possession of the allotted flat after completing the same in all respects; pay interest @10.50% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till delivery of possession of the flat; Rs.10 Lac as compensation for causing mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation or any other relief, which this Commission deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.           Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their written statement, took up certain preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint, as the property is situated at Mohali; Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties at New Delhi; demand for payment was raised by Opposite Party No.2 from Gurgaon; payments were made at Delhi and that the complainants are not consumers and are simply investors, who were looking for making easy money in the resale of the property and they are permanent residents of H.No.228, Sector 60, Mohali; that the complaint does not constitute consumer dispute and the issues raised relate to contractual matter arising out of the terms and conditions of the Agreement.  

6.         On merits, it was denied that the complainants were not aware of the due dates, since all the demand letters specifying the due dates were regularly sent to them. It was further stated that number of reminders were sent to the complainants (Annexure OP-1/2) and they were supposed to make payments as per the milestones specified in the payment plan. It was further stated that the time was the essence of the Agreement.  It was further stated that in the event, the purchaser failed to pay the balance consideration or in the event of any delay in payment of any installment or other charges in accordance with the payment plan, the purchaser was liable to pay interest calculated from the due date of outstanding amount @18% per annum compounded quarterly for the period of delay. It was denied that the complainants signed and submitted the signed copy of the Buyer’s Agreement at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainants directly sent the signed copy of the Buyer’s Agreement to the New Delhi Office where-after the Gurgaon office returned one copy of the Agreement to the complainants for their record vide letter dated 3.11.2009 (Annexure OP-1/15). It was further stated that the construction work and time period for handing over possession of the flat was subject to force majeure circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the developer. It was further stated that the construction work in any project depends on number of factors such as availability of raw material, labour issues, number of Govt. sanctions and approvals and hence, it is impossible for any builder to specify any specific due date in construction linked payment plan. It was further stated that after depositing Rs.1 Lac on 25.02.2010, the complainants made next payment of Rs.3 Lac exactly after two years i.e. 13.02.2012, as per account statement (Annexure OP-1/6). It was admitted that the complainants made total payment of Rs.22,89,640/- inclusive of interest on delayed payments. It was further stated that as per Clause 4C of the Buyer’s Agreement, the developer was liable to pay compensation calculated @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month of the saleable area of the floor for the period of delay in offering possession of the said floor beyond the period of 36 months from the date of signing of the Buyer’s Agreement. It was further stated that such charges were to be adjusted at the time of issuance of notice of possession.

7.         It was further stated that the answering Opposite Parties were facing lot of impediments in getting the electricity from PSPCL, which further delayed the construction work. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Parties have sorted all its problems with the PSPCL and paid the requisite Bank guarantee and have requested to release 1 MVV connection for the project vide letter dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure OP-1/8). It was admitted that despite all the odd conditions, the answering Opposite Parties are making every endeavor to complete the development work at the site and making sincere efforts to handover possession of the said floor to the complainants. It was further stated that as per Clause 8(b) of the Buyer’s Agreement, the answering Opposite Parties are entitled to reasonable extension of time of agreed date for delivery of possession of the floor. It was further stated that the construction work is in full swing and possession shall be shortly handed over to the complainants.

8.         It was further stated that the answering Opposite Parties have already got the approval of the layout plan from PUDA vide letter No.4918 dated 29.10.2007. It was further stated that the letter of intent had stated regarding approval of layout plan and not the zoning plan. It was further stated that the letter of approvals of revised zoning plan (Annexure C-13) pertained to EWS Group Housing Site at Sectors 97, 106, 107, Mohali. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied.

9.         Opposite Party No.3 – HDFC Bank in its written statement, filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Nandan Singh Rawat, its Deputy Manager & Authorised Representative, stated that the grievance of the complainants was only against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, who failed to adhere to their commitments in terms of Buyer’s Agreement. It was further stated that the inter-se obligations of the complainants and Opposite Party No.3 – bank are governed by the terms of the loan agreement (Annexure R-3/1). It was further stated that as regards the finance advanced by Opposite Party No.3, the rights of the parties to the present lis are governed by the Tripartite Agreement (Annexure R-3/2) and permission of mortgage (Annexure R-3/3). It was further stated that in terms of the Tripartite Agreement, in case of cancellation of the unit or in the contingency of termination of the developer buyer agreement, Opposite Party No.3 has the first charge/right to seek apportionment of its dues. It was further stated that the loan account of the complainants is regular till date (Annexure R-3/4). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied.

10.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Kulbir Singh Dogra (complainant No.1), by way of evidence alongwith a number of documents.

11.       Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Lalit Gupta, their Authorized Representative, alongwith a number of documents, by way of evidence. 

12.       Opposite Party No.3, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit-cum-reply of Sh. Nandan Singh Rawat, its Deputy Manager & Authorised Representative, alongwith a number of documents, by way of evidence. 

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

14.       It is evident on record that in pursuance to application dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure C-1), complainant No.1 was allotted Flat No.B-00-0164 (2 Bedroom) in Singleton Floors, Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide allotment letter dated 24.06.2009 (Annexure C-2), total basic sale price whereof, inclusive of EDC & PLC, was Rs.27,34,777/- and the payment plan opted by complainant No.1 was construction linked. Admittedly, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.22,89,640/- vide receipts (Annexures C-7 to C-11), by raising a loan of Rs.21,80,366/-, as per Annexure R-3/4, out of which an amount of Rs.16,02,244/- was disbursed by Opposite Party No.3 – HDFC Bank and the remaining amount was paid by the complainants. Admittedly, Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-6) was executed between the parties on 27.10.2009. As per Clause 4.a of the Buyer’s Agreement aforesaid, the possession of the floor, in question, was proposed to be offered to the complainants within 36 months of signing of the said Agreement, subject to force majeure circumstances. It is admitted by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in Para 8 of written statement (at Page 145) that despite all odd conditions, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are making every endeavour to complete the development work at the site and sincere efforts to handover possession of the said floor to the complainants. It is evident from contents of Para 15 of reply of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that completion/occupation certificate has not been obtained so far. It has also been admitted that the construction work is in full swing and possession shall be shortly handed over to the complainants. Further Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in Para 15 have admitted that complainants are entitled for delay charges as per Clause 4 (c) of the Agreement. The Construction Linked Installment Plan, opted by the complainants, is extracted hereunder:-

CONSTRUCTION LINKED INSTALLMENT PLAN
At the time of Registration	10% of BSP
Within 3 months of allotment	10% of BSP + 25% of EDC
On commencement of construction/demarcation of the plot	10% of BSP + 25% of EDC + 50% of PLC
On construction of reaching Lintel Level	10% of BSP + 25% of EDC + 50% of PLC
On casting of Ground Floor Roof	10% of BSP + 25% of EDC + 50% of CMRC
On casting of First Floor Roof	10% of BSP + 50% of CMRC
On casting of Second Floor Roof	10% BSP
On completion of brick work and internal plastering	5% of BSP
On completion of flooring (except final grinding and polishing)	5% of BSP
On completion of internal electrification	5% of BSP
On completion of internal plumbing	5% of BSP
On completion of external plastering	5% of BSP
On final notice of possession	5% of BSP + Stamp duty charges and any other charges as applicable.

 

As per Customer Ledger up-to 15.12.2014 (Annexure OP-1/6) (Page 211), against the payable amount of Rs.27,34,777/-, a sum of Rs.22,89,640/- stood received by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, which also included service tax, and interest on delayed payment. There is no specific averment in the reply as to what amount as per construction linked installment plan opted by the complainants is due.  

15.       The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. As per Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, since the property, in question, is situated at Mohali; Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties at New Delhi; demand for payment was raised by Opposite Party No.2 from Gurgaon & payments were made at Delhi, therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. A bare perusal of documents on record, reveals that though the Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-6) was executed at New Delhi, payment receipts were issued from Gurgaon/New Delhi, the fact that complainant No.1 submitted the Application for allotment of the floor in the project of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 at the Chandigarh Office of Unitech Limited, cannot be ignored. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the said application form filled in by complainant No.1 at Chandigarh on 15.06.2009 and the same was addressed to ‘Unitech Ltd., SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17C, Chandigarh”, which is the Regional Office of the Company. Payment of Rs.1,67,650/- was received in the Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh i.e. Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-3). In this view of the matter, cause of action for filing the instant complaint arose to the complainants at Chandigarh. Therefore, this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Accordingly, this objection of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stands rejected.

16.       As regards objection of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that the complainants are not consumers as they booked the unit, in question, for investment purpose and not for personal use, it may be stated here that the complainants in the opening para of the complaint have specifically stated that complainant No.1, who was in dire need of the house for his personal use, applied for one flat with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 15.06.2009 at Chandigarh Office. It is clearly evident that complainants secured loan from Opposite Party No.3 for making part payment of the flat, in question. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide their letter dated 21.02.2012 permitted to mortgage the property, in question, in favour of Opposite Party No.3. In such a situation, by no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that the complainants booked the flat, in question, for investment purpose. Further the complainants have prayed for possession alongwith other reliefs. Had they sought refund of the amount deposited, in that event, there could be some logic in the averment of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The logical inference is that the complainants wanted to have a residential unit for their own use and they did not invest to gain profits. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence, brought, on record, by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to the effect, that the complainants purchased the property for investment/commercial purpose, the objection of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even, no evidence was produced by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, that the complainants are property dealers and are engaged in the sale and purchase of property, with an intention to gain huge profits. The objection being devoid of merit, is rejected.

17.       The contention of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that an Agreement for sale/purchase of a plot, is not a consumer dispute and, therefore, the complainants are not consumers, is also not on sound footing. It may be stated here, that it is not the case of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that the complainants purchased the plot, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis”, without any further promise of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, of providing amenities/facilities, and developing the area, where the unit, in question, is situated.  In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, for specific performance, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under  Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of  a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

18.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was delay in offering possession of the unit, in question? Clearly, the complainants opted for Construction Linked Installment Plan. As admitted by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in Para 8 of its written statement (at Page 145) that despite all odd conditions, they (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) are making every endeavour to complete the development work at the site and making sincere efforts to handover possession of the said floor to the complainants and further the construction work is in full swing and possession shall be shortly handed over to the complainants. As per Clause 4.a of the Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure C-6), possession of the floor, in question, was proposed to be offered to the complainants within 36 months of signing of the said Agreement, subject to force majeure circumstances. The aforesaid period of 36 months from the date of signing of the said Agreement, expired on 26.10.2012. Certainly, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2  were deficient in rendering service by not offering physical possession  of  the  unit, in question, complete  in all

 

 

respects, to the complainants within the stipulated period aforesaid. Thus, delay of around 3 ½ years is clearly attributable to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 from the stipulated date i.e. 26.10.2012. No cogent evidence has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties that completion of the unit, in question, and consequently, possession got delayed due to force majeure conditions. Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, during the course of arguments, conceded that the construction of the flat, in question, is still not complete and it may take another couple of months to complete the construction work. For such a delay in delivering physical possession of the unit beyond the stipulated period, in terms of Clauses 4.c of the Buyer’s Agreement, the complainants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5/- (Rupees five only) per sq. ft. per month of the Saleable Area of the floor in question for the period of delay in offering possession of the floor beyond the period indicated in Clause 4.a. Thus, while Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, on account of their failure to adhere to the time schedule for delivering physical possession by 26.10.2012, were not only deficient in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

 

19.         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 caused to them on account of delayed possession. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainants. The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation.  It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary meaning, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.  Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling them (Consumer Foras), to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainants. The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, the complainants suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, at the hands of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as they failed to deliver the actual physical possession of unit, in question, to them (complainants), by the promised date i.e. 26.10.2012. The complainants purchased the unit, with the hope to live in, but their hopes were dashed to the ground. Till date, i.e. even after the expiry of a period of more than 3½ years, from the promised date, physical possession of the unit, has not yet been offered/delivered, to the complainants, by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 . The complainants, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainants, are, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

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

21.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, is partly accepted with costs, against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 only, in the following manner:-

1. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall hand over the legal physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, to the complainants, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the remaining due amount against the flat, in question by the complainants. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 while offering possession shall inform the complainants regarding due amount payable by them (complainants). 
2. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2  shall execute the sale/conveyance deed and get it registered in the name of the complainants after handing over the actual physical possession of unit, in question, as per direction in Clause (i), above, within a period of one month thereafter. The stamp duty, registration charges and all other incidental and legal expenses for execution and registration of sale deed shall be borne by the complainants.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, shall pay charges @Rs.5/- (Rupees five only), per sq. ft. per month of the saleable area of the floor in question, from 27.11.2012 [i.e. after completion of 36 months from the date of execution of the Buyer’s Agreement], as per Clause 4.c of the said Agreement, up-to 31.03.2016, alongwith interest @15% per annum from the date, penalty for each month w.e.f. 27.11.2012 became due, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2  shall pay charges @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for delay in delivering possession beyond 31.03.2016 by the 10^th of following month till actual handing over of physical possession, as directed in Clause (i), above.
5. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as cost of litigation, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
7. In case the order is not complied within the stipulated period, as indicated above, then Opposite Parties No.1 & 2  shall pay the amount mentioned in Clause (iii) alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of default, till payment  and the amount mentioned in Clause (iv) from the date of default till actual payment, and the amounts mentioned in Clauses (v) & (vi) with interest @15% per annum from the date of default till realization.

22.       Since, neither any deficiency has been attributed to Opposite Party No.3 – HDFC Bank nor any relief has been claimed against it, the complaint against it (Opposite Party No.3) is dismissed, with no orders as to cost. 

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

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

Pronounced.

March 31, 2016.

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER