Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/149/2017

Sh. Ipneet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Harpriya Khaneka, Adv.

29 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	149 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	16.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	29.05.2017

 

1. Sh.Ipneet Singh son of Shri Jasbir Singh, resident of House No.120, Phase 2, Mohali, Punjab-160056.
2. Smt.Harbhajan Kaur resident of House No.120, Phase 2, Mohali, Punjab-160056.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

Unitech Limited, SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite party

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

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

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:-      Ms.Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the    complainants.

Mrs.Vertika H. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                The complainants are son and mother respectively. For their personal use, they purchased a ground floor unit, in the project of the opposite party, named ‘Executive Floors’, Sector 97, Uniworld City, Mohali, Punjab. Vide receipt Annexure C-1, an amount of Rs.7.70 lacs, was paid by the complainants, towards booking unit. Vide allotment letter dated 08.09.2011 Annexure C-2, unit bearing no.0041 (4 Bedrooms), Block D, measuring 2157 square feet (approx..) in the said project, was allotted in their favour, for an amount of Rs.69,68,510/-, which included basic price, external development charges etc. Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties, on 30.09.2011. In the said Agreement, payment of amount received to the tune of Rs.7,52,619/- was acknowledged, towards price of the unit, in question. As per Clause 4(a) (i) of the Agreement, possession of constructed unit was agreed to be delivered within 24 months, from the date of signing of the above said Buyer’s Agreement i.e. on or before 29.09.2013, subject to force majeure circumstances. The opposite party was liable to pay compensation @Rs.5/- per square feet, per month of the saleable area of the unit, in case of failure to deliver possession by the stipulated date. As per Annexure-A annexed with the Agreement, the complainants were offered construction linked plus time bound payment plan. On demand raised from time to time, besides making payment of Rs.7,52,619/- plus Rs.17,381/- towards service tax, further amount was paid by the complainants,  towards price of the said unit, in the following manner:-

S.No.	Date	Amount
	22.10.2011	724017.00
	07.12.2011	784255.00
	25.01.2012	675000.00
	14.02.2012	34762.00
	25.01.2012	3600.00

 

It is specific case of the complainants that on receipt of payment due, against the 4^th installment i.e. on 25.01.2012, no further demand was raised by the opposite party. By the time of filing this complaint, an amount of Rs.29,92,561/-, towards price of the unit stood paid by them. It is further case of the complainants that despite having received huge amount, the opposite party failed to develop the project, in question. It is firmly stated that, at the spot, the construction has not yet been started. The complainants were allotted ground floor and till date, shell of the said unit did not exist at the spot. Many a times, the opposite party was approached, however, the complainants failed to get any positive result. Neither possession of the unit was delivered nor penalty amount qua period of delay was offered to the complainants. They were compelled to send legal notice dated 02.05.2016 Annexure C-10, wherein, request was made to the opposite party, to hand over possession, as promised, in terms of Agreement dated 30.09.2011. The said notice was not replied. Thereafter also, requests were made many a times, however, the complainants failed to get any positive result. Compelled under circumstances, the instant complaint has been filed by the complainants with a prayer to issue directions to the opposite party to refund the amount deposited alongwith interest; compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.51,000/-.

2.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party. Disputing territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, to entertain the complaint, it was stated that Buyer’s Agreement was executed at New Delhi; demands were raised from Gurgaon Office; receipts were also issued from the said office, and the Branch Office at Chandigarh, at no time did any act, which may give any cause of action to the complainants to invoke territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Status of the complainants as consumer, was also disputed by stating that they had purchased the said unit for future gain, as such, they being investors, would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. They are residing in their house at Mohali. Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, was also challenged. It was also averred that in terms of Clause 8.b. of the Agreement, it was open to the opposite party to ask for further extension of time to handover possession of the unit, on account of force majeure circumstances, under which construction/development work could not be completed.
3.         On merits, it is admitted that the complainants had purchased the unit, in question, from the opposite party. Price of the said unit and the payments made by the complainants, in respect thereof, as mentioned in the complaint, is also not disputed. Execution of the Agreement aforesaid, between the parties, is also not disputed.  It is stated that the dispute being a contractual one, consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court, could adjudicate the same. It was also not disputed that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the  opposite party was to hand over possession of a fully constructed unit, to the  complainants within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), subject to force majeure conditions. The said period was tentative. An attempt has been made to say that time was not the essence of contract. It is clarified that the opposite party could not complete the construction/development work and hand over possession of  the unit to the  complainants, as there was global meltdown/recession of the economy worldwide, resulting into financial hardships and also due to objection raised by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), a number of times, as such, electricity could not be made available at the site, by the opposite party, due to which, rest of the construction/development work and providing of the basic amenities was delayed. It is stated that construction/ development work at the site, is being carried out, in full swing and the opposite party is making sincere efforts to hand over possession of the unit, to the complainants at the earliest. It is averred that for any delay, stipulated penalty has been provided in the Agreement, which safeguarded rights of the complainants. It was also stated that the opposite party vide letter dated 03.02.2016, has applied to the Competent Authority, to issue partial completion certificate, in respect of the project, in question. It was stated that in terms of Clause 2 (e) of the Agreement, in case, the buyer cancels the allotment, and/or seek refund of the amount deposited, the opposite party is at liberty to forfeit the booking/earnest amount, out of the deposited amount, as the case may be. The remaining averments are denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their case. 
5.         We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
6.         Before making any reference to the merits of the case, we will like to decide the objection raised by the opposite party that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, it is not open to this Commission to entertain and adjudicate this complaint. It is necessary to mention here that, as per admitted facts, the complainants have sought refund of amount paid i.e. Rs.29,92,561/- alongwith interest @21% p.a.; compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.51,000/-. At the time of arguments, it is argued by Counsel for the opposite party that if the entire claimed amount is added, it will cross Rs.1 crore and in that event, it will not be open to this Commission to entertain and adjudicate this complaint, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. We have calculated the entire claim raised by the complainants, in their complaint, and found that, in no way, the aggregate thereof, crosses Rs.1 crore. It is not known, as to how and why, such a vague objection has been taken by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to produce on record any such calculation sheet, to convince this Commission, that the relief claimed by the complainant exceeds Rs.1 crore. In view of above, objection raised by Counsel for the opposite party stands rejected.
7.         The contention of Counsel for the opposite party that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, needs to be rejected. In the instant case, it has been candidly admitted by the opposite party that it has Marketing Office at Chandigarh i.e. at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Furthermore, it is evident from the documents (copies of cheques) at page 36, 38 and 40 of the file, that substantial amount was received by Regional Office of the opposite party at SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. If it is so, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint, in view of law laid down by the National Commission, in a case titled as Ravinder Kumar Bajaj Vs. Parsvnath Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 3 ors., First Appeal No. 515 of 2016, 23.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:-

“Since in the Grounds of Appeal, a specific averment is made by the Appellant to the effect that in the year 2007, when the subject flat was booked, the Respondent Company did have a Branch office at Chandigarh, where the payments in respect of the project used to be received regularly, on a pointed query, learned Counsel appearing for the Company very fairly states, on instructions, that the stand of the Appellant is correct.

In light of the statement by learned Counsel for the Respondent Company, I am of the view that in the present case, the State Commission UT, Chandigarh has the Territorial Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Complaint filed by the Appellant”.

                Even the customer ledger Annexure C-7 pertaining to the account of the complainant, in respect of the unit, in question, also reveals that the same was issued by the opposite party at Chandigarh. Besides as above, when we look into the documents placed on record, by the opposite party, relating to seeking permissions from the Competent Authorities, in relation to the project, in question, it reveals that correspondence took place between Regional Office of the opposite party at Chandigarh and the Authorities concerned, for release of electricity connection and to complete other formalities, which are necessary to develop the project. On the basis of above facts, it is held that since a part of cause of action, arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by Counsel for the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

8.         To defeat claim of the complainants, another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party, that the complainants are investors, as they have purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. They are residing in their own house at Mohali, Punjab.

                It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show, that the complainants are property dealers, and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. On the other hand, the complainants, in paragraph no.1 of their complaint have specifically stated that the unit, in question, was purchased by them, for their residential purpose. On the other hand, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite party, mere bald assertion to that effect, 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 as above, under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed 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.  In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

                The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainants, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. The complainants thus, fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by Counsel for the  opposite party, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

9.         Another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the opposite party, for purchasing the unit, in the manner, referred to above. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the  Agreement, the  opposite party was liable to deliver physical possession of the constructed unit, in the developed project, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. on or before 29.09.2013, alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(iii) [at page 19 of the file) of the Agreement. However, by not doing so, the opposite party breached the material terms and conditions of the Agreement. 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”

 

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 1986 Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can also be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by Counsel for the  opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.         It is apparent on record that the opposite party has failed to discharge its promise made vide Agreement dated 30.09.2011. Possession of the constructed unit, in a developed project was to be delivered within 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement. Admittedly, substantial amount of Rs.29,92,561/- towards price of the unit stood paid. Thereafter, no demand was raised by the opposite party. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite party has failed to commit about the period within which, possession of the unit can even now be delivered. Even in the written reply, no definite time period has been given, within which, possession of the unit can be delivered in near future. It has only been stated that construction work is in full swing and possession of the unit will be delivered at the earliest.

                In the written version, the opposite party, frankly admitted that possession of the unit, in question, could not be offered to the complainants, by the stipulated date, as it had failed to complete the construction and development work, on account of extreme financial hardship, due to recession in the market/global meltdown, and also on account of non-provision of electricity in the said project, by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). It is significant to note here that even partial completion certificate has not been obtained by the opposite party, till date, what to speak of obtaining final completion certificate, which is mandatory, before delivery of possession of the unit. Admission made by the opposite party, itself makes it clear that it has not obtained necessary approvals/sanctions from the PSPCL, as a result whereof, it was not provided with electricity, for the project in question. Still, the opposite party is working on obtaining permissions, from the PSPCL/GMADA.

                Secondly, when the opposite party, had already received substantial amount of Rs.29,92,561/-, towards the unit(s), and from the allottee(s) like the complainants, and admittedly no further demand was ever raised by it (opposite party), then it does not lie in its mouth to say, that it faced extreme financial hardship, due to recession in the market, as far as the project, in question, is concerned. It is not that the opposite party was, in the first instance, required to complete the construction of flats and develop the project, by arranging funds out of its own sources, and, thereafter, the units were to be sold to the allottees, on future payment basis. Had this been the case of the opposite party, only in those circumstances, the plea with regard to facing extreme financial hardship would have been considered to be correct, by this Commission.

                Even otherwise, the said difficulty/ground i.e. recession in the market/global meltdown would not fall under the definition of force majeure circumstances, for not completing the construction and development work at the site. A change in economic or market circumstances affecting the profitability of a contract or the circumstance, is not regarded as a force majeure condition. Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended, stopping suspending or delaying the construction/development work of the project, in which flat(s)/plot(s) were agreed to be sold to the consumers. There is no allegation of any lockout 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 construction/development work in the project, within the time stipulated in the Agreement. A similar question fell for determination before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  2015 (4) CPR 34. 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 parties 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.”.

 

                The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The opposite party failed to convince this Commission, that it actually faced any force majeure circumstances. The opposite party, therefore, cannot take shelter under Article 8.b. of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. By making a misleading statement, that  possession of the unit, in question, would be delivered within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement but on the other hand, by not abiding by the commitments made, the opposite party was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.         At the same time, it is also held that since a specific time period for handing over possession of the unit, was mentioned in the agreement dated 30.09.2011 i.e. 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, the opposite party cannot say that the said period was tentative and that time was not the essence of contract, especially when it has been held above that the opposite party failed to convince this Commission, that it actually faced any force majeure circumstances, and cannot take shelter under Article 8.b. of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit.
12.         It has been proved on record that there was a material violation on the part of the opposite party, in not delivering possession of the unit, by the stipulated date or thereafter. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held  as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants 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 along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

13.         Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-

“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.”

 

14.         Further, in another case titled as 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, under similar circumstances, held as under:-

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

 

                In the present case, the position is worst, as, what to talk of delay in offer of possession, even this much has not been proved, as to whether, construction took place at the site or not. Under these circumstances, it is held that since there was a material violation on the part of the opposite party, in not offering and handing over possession of the unit by the stipulated date and also still, after expiry of period of more than about three and a half years of the stipulated date, position is the same, the complainants are entitled to get refund of amount deposited by them.

                In view of above facts of the case, the opposite party is also under an obligation to compensate the complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

15.         It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainants. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.29,92,561/- was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite party was charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @18%) as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, (less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite party, in case of delayed payment i.e. 18% compounded quarterly, as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement), till realization. 
16.         Since it has already been held above that the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest and compensation, as such, plea taken by Counsel for the opposite party, that the opposite party is ready to pay compensation for the period of delay, as per the Agreement, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.
17.         As far as the plea taken by the opposite party, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not the case of the opposite party that it was ready with possession of the unit, in question, to be delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date but the complainants wanted to rescind the contract, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/financial constraints or for any personal reason, and were seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the opposite party, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that since the complainants themselves are rescinding the contract, as such, they are entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per law. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.
18.         No other point was urged by Counsel for the parties.
19.         For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite party is directed as under: -

1.       To refund the amount of Rs.29,92,561/- alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, to the complainants.
2.       To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3.       To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.
4.       The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% compounded quarterly, instead of @15%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

20.         However, it is made clear that, if the complainants have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants).
21.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

29.05.2017

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 Rg.