Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/245/2015

Rajeev Kumar Kalia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sharma

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	245 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.12.2015

 

1. Rajeev Kumar Kalia son of Shri Sohan Lal Kalia.
2. Manjula Kalia wife of Shri Rajeev Kumar Kalia.

Both residents of House No.54, Type-5, Nuhon Colony, Thermal Plant, P.O. Ghanauli, Ropar, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, through its Branch Head/Manager, having its Marketing Office at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
2. Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017

             .... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.

                  Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for the 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

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.), PRESIDENT

           

            Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing No.244 of 2015 titled as Manuj Doger Vs. Unitech Limited  and another, this complaint has been partly accepted, with costs.

2.       Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No.244 of 2015 titled as Manuj Doger Vs. Unitech Limited  and another, be placed on this file.
3.           Certified copies of the main order, alongwith this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

 

Sd/-                  Sd/-                                    Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

Rg.

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	244 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.12.2015

 

Manuj Doger son of Sh. K.K. Sood, resident of C-12, First Floor, Sector-1, Lane-1, New Shimla-171009.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, SCO 189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

….Opposite party no.1

2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC), SCO 371-372, Sector 35B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

              .... Opposite party no.2

Argued by:   Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant.

                  Ms.Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                  Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for opposite party            no.2

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

Complaint case No.	:	245 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.12.2015

 

1. Rajeev Kumar Kalia son of Shri Sohan Lal Kalia.
2. Manjula Kalia wife of Shri Rajeev Kumar Kalia.

Both residents of House No.54, Type-5, Nuhon Colony, Thermal Plant, P.O. Ghanauli, Ropar, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, through its Branch Head/Manager, having its Marketing Office at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
2. Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017

             .... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.

                  Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

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

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.), PRESIDENT

           

            This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two consumer complaints bearing Nos.244 of 2015 titled as Manuj Doger Vs. Unitech Limited  and another and 245 of 2015 titled as Rajeev Kumar Kalia and another Vs. Unitech Limited and another, filed by the complainant(s), alleging deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties (Builder), on the ground that despite making payment of substantial amount towards price of the unit allotted in their favour, possession thereof, was not delivered to them, for want of construction thereof and necessary approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities.  

2.       Counsel for both the parties are in agreement that except difference of dates in moving application for allotment; execution of the Buyer's Agreement etc., the facts and legal issues, involved in both the cases, are same. In view of the above, to dictate this order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint No.244 of 2015, titled as Manuj Doger Vs. Unitech Limited  and another.
3.       The complainant is a resident of Shimla. With an intention to shift near to Chandigarh, she moved an application (Annexure C-1) to opposite party no.1, for purchase of a residential flat, having super area of 1050 square feet, in its project named “Gardens”, to be developed in the mega township (Uniworld City), Sector 97, Mohali, Punjab.

            Alongwith the said application, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.3,29,000/- with opposite party No.1, on 27.08.2012. Perusal of the said application indicates that it was addressed to opposite party no.1 i.e. Unitech Limited, SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17C, Chandigarh (UT). The application and  amount of Rs.3,29,000/- lacs, through cheque, towards booking amount, was received by opposite party no.1, at Chandigarh.

4.       Vide allotment letter dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure C-4), flat No.0401, in Block No.A-4, Floor No.04, was allotted to the complainant, against total sale consideration of Rs.34,39,650/-. Apartment Allotment Agreement (in short the Buyer's Agreement) was signed between the parties, on 13.09.2012. It was stated that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, possession of the flat, in question, was to be delivered within 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Buyer's Agreement).

            Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement,  reads thus:-

“That Subject to the Apartment Allottee(s) complying with various terms and conditions of this agreement and other requirement as indicated by the Developer, the possession of the Apartment is proposed to be offered to the Apartment Allottee(s) within 36 months of signing of these presents, subject to Force Majeure circumstances and upon registration of Sale Deed provided all amounts due and payable by the Apartment Allottee(s) under this Agreement have been paid within the stipulated period. It is, however, understood between the Parties that various Apartments shall be ready and shall be completed in phases and handed over to the Apartment Allottee(s) of the completed Tower/Block accordingly.”

5.       As per Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, subject to terms and conditions thereof, possession of the flat, in question, was to be delivered to the complainant, within 36 months, from the date of signing the same (Buyer's Agreement). It was further agreed that the date of possession can be extended, in case of default and negligence attributable to the complainant, or on account of force majeure circumstances, or in case of enactment of any act, rules, etc. etc, stopping construction in the said project.
6.       It is further case of the complainant that on 09.10.2012, she paid another amount of Rs.3,73,335/-, by way of cheque, which was received by opposite party no.1, at Chandigarh. The complainant applied for a loan of Rs.27,50,000/- to opposite party No.2, which was repayable within a period of 20 years, @10.50% P.A., on variable rate basis. Tripartite Agreement (Annexure C-8) between the complainant, opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.2 was executed on 10.10.2012. As per terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement, it was the duty of opposite party no.2, to make payment of installments, from time to time, towards price of the said flat, to opposite party no.1, as stipulated in the Buyer’s Agreement. There is nothing on record to show that any default was committed by opposite party no.2, in making payment of installments, to opposite party no.1. In reply filed by opposite party no.2, it is stated that the loan account of the complainant remained regular, till date. It is stated by the complainant that in the year 2014, she visited the project site, three times and was shocked to see that the construction was not in progress. Sensing that handing over of possession will be delayed, the complainant wrote  letters dated 07.01.2015, to opposite party no.1 and to the Developer M/s Alice Developer Private Limited, Basement-6, Community Center, Saket New Delhi-110017, stating that there was no construction at the site and if the project has been abandoned and there is no plan to restart construction, within the stipulated period, amount deposited by her, be returned alongwith interest. Further, alternate request was also made to hand over possession of the flat, in question, within the stipulated period, in terms of the Buyer's Agreement. Copies of the letters dated 07.01.2015, have been placed on record collectively as Annexure C-10, alongwith postal receipts. It is specific case of the complainant that above letters were not responded by opposite party no.1.
7.       By alleging as above, it was stated that there is deficiency in providing service, on the part of opposite party no.1 and its act also amounted to unfair trade practice. In a way, it was stated that when construction was stopped, it was obligatory on the part of opposite party no.1 to stop receiving payments, from opposite party no.2. Hence, the consumer complaint.
8.       To the averments made in the complaint, filed by the complainant, reply was filed by opposite party no.2, stating therein, that as per the Tripartite Agreement, payment was made to opposite party no.1. It was stated that the loan account of the complainant remained regular throughout. It was further averred that, in case, this Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount, deposited by her, the amount of loan already extended to her, shall be ordered to be directly paid to opposite party no.2. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
9.       In the reply filed by opposite party no.1, it admitted purchase of a built-up flat by the complainant; it price; and period of delivery of possession, as per the Buyer's Agreement dated 13.09.2012. It was stated that the Buyer and Tripartite Agreements were executed between the parties, at New Delhi and  demand for payment of installments, in respect of price of the unit, in question, was also raised by Gurgaon Office of opposite party no.1. It was averred that the demand draft(s)/cheque(s) were received by the Regional Office of opposite party no.1, at Chandigarh, only as a facilitator. Stating as above, an attempt has been made to say that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint.
10.       An objection was also raised that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was averred that the complainant already owned two residential units, at Shimla, as such, the property in dispute was purchased by her, only to gain benefit in future i.e. for selling the same, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate. It was averred that consumer complaint was not maintainable, and only a suit for specific performance, in Civil Court, for enforcement of the Buyer's Agreement, can be instituted. It was further stated that the period of handing over possession of the flat, in question, had expired only in the month of September 2015, this complaint has been filed immediately thereafter, as such, it is not justified. In terms of Article 8.b. of the Buyer's Agreement, opposite party no.1 is entitled to extend time, to hand over possession of the unit, on account of force majeure circumstances. It was stated that opposite party no.1, could not hand over possession of the flat, to the complainant, as there was meltdown of the economy worldwide, resulting into cash crunch throughout. Real estate market is in debt, on account of that reason. Financial constraints did not allow opposite party no.1 to complete construction of the unit(s), in time. It was stated that delay also occurred, because of non-provision of electricity in the said project, by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). It was also stated that completion work of the unit, in question, is going on and possession will be given to the complainant in the near future. It was also alleged that time was not essence of the contract and that opposite party no.1 is making endeavour to hand over possession of the said flat, to the complainant. At the maximum, for delay in handing over possession of the flat, in question, the complainant can claim penalty charges, as provided under Article 4.c.ii of the Buyers Agreement. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
11.       The parties led evidence, in support of their case by filing their affidavits to support their averments. Large number of documents were also placed on record, to strengthen their respective pleas.
12.       After hearing Counsel for the parties and on going through evidence and record of the cases, very minutely, we are of the considered opinion, that both the complaints deserves to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter . 
13.       When addressing arguments, Counsel for the complainant submitted that, at site, as on today, the construction is complete, only upto the extent of 25% of the project. When this Commission confronted Counsel for opposite party no.1 for above arguments and she was asked to disclose, how much construction has been raised at the spot, she very hesitantly stated that the construction of unit(s) is complete upto 50% in the project, in question.

            Factual matrix of the case is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant had not defaulted in making payment of installments, towards price of the said unit. In the first instance, payment was made by the complainant, and, thereafter, under Tripartite Agreement aforesaid, installments were paid by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 has specifically stated in its written reply that loan account of the complainant remained regular throughout. In the reply filed by opposite party no.1 also, there is nothing to suggest that, at any point of time, default was committed by the complainant or by opposite party no.2, in making payment towards price of the said unit. Above fact clearly demonstrates that the complainant had discharged her obligation, as per the Buyers Agreement and fault lies only with opposite party no.1.

14.       It is not in dispute that as per Article  4 a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainant, by opposite party no.1, within three years from 13.09.2012 i.e. on or before 12.09.2015. This complaint was filed thereafter. Contention of Counsel for opposite party no.1 that opposite party no.1, in terms of Article 8.b. of the Buyer's Agreement was entitled to get the time extended, if construction is not raised, in time, on account of the reasons, beyond its control, is liable to be rejected. It is stated by Counsel for opposite party no.1 that there was a global market recession/melt-down in real estate sector. Prices of the property had gone down, as a result whereof, financial possession of opposite party no.1 went very week and on account of that, construction could not be raised, in time. It may be stated here that the said difficulty/ground would not fall under the definition of force majeure circumstances, for not completing the construction of unit(s).  A change in economic or market circumstances affecting the profitability of a contract or the circumstance, with which the parties' obligations can easily be performed, is not regarded as a force majeure condition. Even otherwise, when opposite party no.1 had already received entire sale consideration of the unit, in question, from the complainant, then it does not lie in its mouth, that it  faced extreme financial hardship, due to recession in the market, as far as the project, in question, is concerned.  Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended, stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the project, in which flat(s) were agreed to be sold to the complainant. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour, at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of opposite party no.1 or the contractors engaged by it, at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project, within the time stipulated in the Buyer's Agreement.

            A similar question fell for determination before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in  Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  decided on 14 Aug 2015. The National Commission, in that case, while rejecting the plea of the builder, held as under:-

“Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression ‘slow down’ would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down’ having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project.”.

15.        The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Furthermore, no benefit of above arguments,  can be given to opposite party no.1 because even as on today, construction is complete between 25 to 50 % of the total project, and further it has been demonstrated by Counsel for the complainant, by making reference to letters dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure C-10 colly.), that construction activity is not going on, at the spot. In that situation, it can be presumed that even if the time is extended by few months, it would not be possible for opposite party no.1, to deliver possession of built-up flat to the complainant. Such a plea, raised by opposite party no.1, at the time of arguments, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
16.        Further contention of Counsel for opposite party no.1 that since the unit in question was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, to gain huge profits, by selling the same, as and when there is escalation in prices, as such, she did not fall within definition of consumer, as provided under Section 2 (i) (d) of the Act, does not carry any weight, and is liable to be rejected.

            It is specifically stated by the complainant that she was residing at Shimla and with a view to probe better opportunities, she wanted to shift at Chandigarh and for that reason, built-up flat was purchased by her in the said project. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. Recently, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, 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. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja's case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the flat, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by opposite party no.1, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

17.         An attempt was also made by opposite party no.1, to defeat claim of the complainant, by raising an objection, that since the Buyer and Tripartite Agreements were executed between the parties, at New Delhi; and  also the demand for payment of price, in respect of the unit, in question, was raised by Gurgaon Office of opposite party no.1, meaning thereby that no cause of action accrued to her, at Chandigarh, as such, this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint.

            According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to her/him. In the instant case, it is evident, that application form Annexure C-1, in respect of booking of the said unit, alongwith which, an amount of Rs.3,29,000/-, was also remitted by way of cheque, was moved to the Marketing Office of opposite party no.1 at Chandigarh, i.e. Unitech Ltd., SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The said address of opposite party no.1 is also mentioned in the Buyer's Agreement, executed between the parties. Not only this, it is further evident from the receipts at pages 12 and 38 of the file, that cheque, in the amount of Rs.3,29,000/- towards booking amount of the unit, in question, as also another amount of Rs.3,73,335/- by way of cheque, had been received by the Regional Office of opposite party no.1, at Chandigarh i.e. at Unitech Limited, Regional Office, SCO 189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160014. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by opposite party no.1, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

18.        It was also contended by Counsel for opposite party no.1 that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Buyer's Agreement, in respect of the unit, in question, i.e. immoveable property, only a suit, in the Civil Court was maintainable.

            The complainant hired the services of opposite party no.1, for purchasing the flat, in question, and she was allotted the same for consideration. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, opposite party no.1 was required to hand over possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Buyer's Agreement). It was not that the complainant purchased the unit, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis”.  Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

19.       From the afore-extracted Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, it is evident that housing construction, also comes within the definition of a service. 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 complainant had a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, could be availed of by her, as she falls within the definition of a consumer. In this view of the matter, the submission of Counsel for opposite party no.1, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
20.        Another objection raised by Counsel for opposite party no.1 that time was not essence of the contract is also devoid of merit, in view of Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, referred to above, according to which, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same, subject to force majeure circumstances, failing which, as per Article 4.c.ii it was liable to pay penalty @Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area of the flat, in question, per month, for the period of delay. Since, it has already been held above, that opposite party no.1 had not encountered any force majeure circumstances, in respect of the project, in question, and did not deserve extension of time, for delivery of possession of the unit, in question, as such, it can very well be said that time was unequivocally made the essence of contract. The plea of Counsel for opposite party no.1, in this regard also stands rejected.
21.       Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by her and also compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to her, at the hands of opposite party no.1, as also escalation in prices, or not.

            It is not disputed that the complainant has raised loan to purchase the unit, in question, from a bank. She had expectations to settle in the unit, after lapse of 36 months, from the date of execution of the Buyer’s Agreement i.e. from 13.09.2012. However, her hopes were not fulfilled when possession of the unit, in question, was not even offered to her, by the stipulated date or even till date. Even during the arguments, it has been frankly admitted by Counsel for opposite party no.1, that as on today, between 25% to 50% construction work at the project, is complete. It is very pertinent to mention here that even this submission of Counsel for opposite party no.1 cannot be believed, as no convincing and material document has been placed on record, in support of the same. Even today, construction of the unit is not complete and firm date to hand over possession is not in sight. Opposite party no.1 has failed to perform its part of the Buyer’s Agreement, despite receiving the entire sale consideration, from the complainant. The act in not handing over possession in time, as per the Buyer’s Agreement, or even till date, is a material deficiency, in providing service on the part of opposite party no.1. Thus, the complainant is certainly entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.34,52,355/-, deposited by her. Not only this, the complainant is also required to be compensated for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her, as also escalation in prices.

22.       Whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.34,52,355/- deposited by her, if so, at what rate.

            There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, as per Article 2.c. of the Buyer’s Agreement, opposite party no.1 was charging interest @18% compounded quarterly, for the period of  delay in making payment of installments. In the instant case, despite making payment of the entire sale consideration of the unit, opposite party no.1 is unable to deliver  possession of the unit, in question, on account of pending development works, want of basic amenities, and non-provision of electricity, as admitted by it. Still, no firm date of delivery of possession of the flat, in question, is given to the complainant.  In view of above facts, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by her, to the tune of Rs.34,52,355/-, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly.

23.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.     
24.       For the reasons recorded above, consumer complaint bearing No.244 of 2015 titled as Manuj Doger Vs. Unitech Limited  and another, is partly accepted, with costs, against opposite party No.1 only. Opposite party no.1 is directed as under:-

1. To  refund the amount of   Rs.34,52,355/-, to  the complainant,  alongwith interest @ 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards,   within 2 months, from  the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this order.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant.
4.  Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., from which the loan was taken by the complainant, for payment of installments towards the said unit, shall have first charge on the amount, referred to in Clause (i) above, to the extent of unpaid loan amount, by her (complainant).
5. In case, the payment of awarded amounts, is not made, within the stipulated period, then opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay the same, alongwith penal interest @ 18% compounded quarterly, instead of 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization.
6. Complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed, with no order as to costs, as no deficiency in providing service or unfair trade practice has been proved on its part.

 

25.       Consumer complaint bearing No. 245 of 2015 titled as Rajeev Kumar Kalia and another Vs. Unitech Limited and another, is partly accepted, with costs, against the opposite parties. In this case, the opposite parties (Builder) are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To  refund the amount of   Rs.39,44,810/-, to  the complainants,  alongwith interest @ 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards,   within 2 months, from  the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this order.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants.
4.  Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., from which the loan was taken by the complainants, for payment of installments towards the said unit, shall have first charge on the amount, referred to in Clause (i) above, to the extent of unpaid loan amount, by them (complainants).
5. In case, the payment of awarded amounts, is not made, within the stipulated period, then the opposite parties shall be liable to pay the same, alongwith penal interest @ 18% compounded quarterly, instead of 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization.

 

26.       Certified copy of this order shall also be placed, in the file of consumer complaint bearing No.245 of 2015 titled as Rajeev Kumar Kalia and another Vs. Unitech Limited and another. 
27.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
28.       The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.12.2015

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.