Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/392/2017

Shivinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sunish Bindlish, Adv.

25 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	392 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	25-Aug-17

 

Shivinder Singh son of Capt.Parminder Singh, r/o House No.1035, Sector 11-C, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, through its General Manager/Principal Employer, having its Registered Office at SCO 180-90-91, Sector 17/C, Chandigarh.
2. Unitech Limited, through its Managing Directors/Authorized Signatories having its Registered Regional Head Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
3. Alice Developers Private Limited, through its Managing Director, 6,  Community Centre, Basement, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 …..Opposite parties

Argued by:-      Sh.Daljit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Mrs.Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

Opposite party no.3 exparte.

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

Complaint case No.	:	428 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	19.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	25-Aug-17

 

Subhash Awasthy son of Late Sh.D.R. Awasthy, resident of E-2, Ambuja Colony, Village Dabrujee, P.O. Lodhi Majra, District Ropar (Punjab).

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, Marketing Office at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, PIN 160017, through its Managing Director.
2. Alice Developers Private Limited, Registered Office at Basement, 6,  Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 …..Opposite parties

Argued by:-      Sh.Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

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

                By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in both the cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. During preliminary hearing, Counsel for the complainant(s), in both the complaints, confined their prayer qua refund of the amount paid, towards respective units, alongwith interest, compensation etc. At the time of arguments, on 17.08.2017, it was agreed between Counsel for the contesting parties, that, in view of above, both the complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

                Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.392 of 2017 titled as Shivinder Singh Vs. Unitech Limited and ors. It is case of the complainant that in the year 2010, he was living in a joint family, with an intention to establish his own separate residential house, to start his married life, he decided to purchase a flat, in a project of the opposite parties, launched by them, under the name and style ‘Gardens’, Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali, Punjab. He moved an application on 01.12.2010 and an amount of Rs.4 lacs, was paid by him, as booking amount. He was allotted residential apartment bearing no.0403, 4^th Floor, Block A-3, having super area of 1485 square feet (in short the unit), in the said project, for an amount of Rs.40,71,150/-, which included basic sale price, external development charges etc. He was offered construction linked payment plan. At the time of arguments, it was stated that, thereafter, the complainant received draft of Buyer’s Agreement. It was signed on 01.12.2010 and sent back to the opposite parties. It was further stated that its copy was not received back. Signed document (Agreement) by the complainant, has been placed on record as Annexure C-2.  He was issued allotment letter dated 01.12.2010 Annexure C-3. It is his further case that thereafter, from time to time, he, in all, paid an amount of Rs.40,18,307/-, to the opposite parties, in the following manner:-

 

Sr.No.	Date	Amount
	01.12.2010	400000.00
	16.02.2011	378274.00
	25.04.2012	971367.00
	10.06.2012	466557.00
	07.08.2012	445650.00
	29.10.2012	490266.00
	27.12.2012	427428.00
	27.12.2012	250000.00
	11.09.2013	188765.00

 

Further, remaining amount was not paid because construction had not reached upto the agreed level and also no demand was raised by the opposite parties. As per Buyer’s Agreement, referred to above, the opposite parties committed to hand over possession of the built-up unit, within a period of 36 months i.e. on or before 01.12.2013. It was further stipulated that in case of delay, the opposite parties were liable to pay penal compensation. When possession of the unit was not delivered, as committed, he made a request for the same, however, failed to get any positive result. Faced with the situation, he filed a complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver possession of the unit, in question, alongwith other relief or in the alternative, to refund the amount paid, alongwith interest, payment of holding charges, compensation, litigation expenses etc.  

2.         Notice in this complaint was issued on 12.05.2017, for 15.06.2017. On 12.05.2017, Mrs.Vertika H.Singh, Advocate, was present in this Commission to represent opposite parties no.1 and 2, in some other case. On our asking, she accepted notice of this complaint, to file vakalatnama, on the next date of hearing. On 15.06.2017, as per office note, report qua notice sent to opposite party no.3 through registered post on 15.05.2017, was not received back. As such, the complaint was adjourned to 18.07.2017, to await service of opposite party no.3. On the said date,   despite    deemed   service, none put in appearance on behalf   of  opposite  party no.3, as  a    result    whereof,     it was
3. proceeded against exparte, by this Commission, by invoking the provisions of Regulation 10 (2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
4.          Opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement, wherein, factual matrix of the case was not seriously disputed, except that no Buyer’s Agreement was signed on 01.12.2010, as alleged by the complainant. Whereas, Buyer’s Agreement was signed between the parties on 16.09.2013 and as per Clause 4 (a) (i) of the said Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before 15.09.2016. However,  an attempt has been made to wash of their hands, by stating that Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.09.2013 was signed between them, opposite party no.3 and the complainant, and as per Developers Agreement, opposite party no.3 only, was to construct the flats and hand over possession thereof, to the purchasers. As opposite party no.3 has failed to do so, as such, no liability can be imposed upon opposite parties no.1 and 2. Territorial jurisdiction of this Commission was challenged by stating that Buyer’s Agreement was signed at New Delhi and also all the payments were received by Delhi/Gurgaon Office of the opposite parties. Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged. It was asserted that the complainant being investor, would not fall within definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5.         On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased the residential unit, in question, in the said project. Payments made by the complainant are also not disputed. Fact qua price of the unit, as mentioned in the complaint was also not controverted. It was stated that Chandigarh Office of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 was providing various facilities to the purchasers, including the complainant, on behalf of opposite party no.3. Amount collected from the complainant, was deposited in the designated account of opposite party no.3. It was stated that the dispute being a contractual one, consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court, could adjudicate the same. It was averred that delay in construction of flats occurred on account of force majeure circumstances. It was further stated that the developer was entitled to reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession of the unit, on account of force majeure circumstances. The said period was extendable and till such time, the sale deed is executed. Opposite party no.3 was also authorized to use Unitech Trade Mark and Corporate Logo, for various purposes, such as promotional, marketing, advertisements etc. 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 developer is at liberty to forfeit the booking/earnest amount, out of the deposited amount, as the case may be. It was further stated that since it was opposite party no.3, which was to construct the units and deliver possession of the same, as such, no liability can be fastened upon opposite parties no.1 and 2, as they were only the confirming parties. It was also stated that  opposite parties no.1 and 2 have no liability to make refund of the amount deposited. It was averred that the complainant can only seek compensation, for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the unit, and cannot seek refund of amount paid. It was pleaded that the complaint filed is beyond limitation. The remaining averments are denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
6.         In the short rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in the written version of opposite parties no.1 and 2.
7.         The contesting parties, led evidence in support of their cases and also raised arguments in terms of pleadings noted in earlier part of this order, which were heard, in detail. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the complainant confined his prayer qua refund of amount paid alongwith interest, compensation, etc.
8.         Before deciding the issues raised by both the parties, it is necessary to determine, as to on which date, Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties and that, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid, or not.  The complainant has alleged that Buyer’s Agreement was signed on 01.12.2010. To say so, photocopy of the said agreement has been placed on record as Annexure C-2. We have perused the said document. It is signed only by the complainant and it doesn’t bear signatures of the opposite parties. On the other hand, the document Annexure OP-1/3 is a verbatim copy of Buyer’s Agreement upon which, reliance was placed by opposite parties no.1 and 2. However, copy of the said Buyer’s Agreement is shown to have been signed on 16.09.2013. We may presume (not admitting) that Buyer’s Agreement was signed between the parties on the said date. However, even as per terms and conditions of Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.09.2013, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 36 months i.e. on or before 15.09.2016. There is nothing on record to show that even by that time, construction of the unit was complete. The complainant had paid virtually the entire amount towards price of the unit and has got nothing in return. At the time of arguments, Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 very hesitantly stated that possession of the unit can be delivered within next one year. We are not going to believe the said statement because in many other cases, similar statement was given one year ago and even in those cases, the opposite parties have not handed over possession of the units, till date. It is a case of refund and there is no dispute that first payment was made by the complainant on 01.12.2010 and thereafter, by the date of alleged agreement, on which reliance has been placed by the opposite parties, the complainant had paid virtually the entire amount. In such a situation, it was not justifiable for the opposite parties, to retain the money paid without executing buyer’s agreement, for the period of more than three years. By doing so, unfair trade practice has been adopted by the opposite parties.

                As per Clause 4 (a) (i) of the agreement dated 16.09.2013, the opposite parties were liable to hand over possession of the built-up unit, latest by 15.09.2016, which has not been done.  It is on record that there is a material violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, on the part of the opposite parties. It is a 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.”

 

9.         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.

 

10.         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”.

 

                However, in the present case, as has been noted in earlier part of this order, even as on today, construction is not complete and it is admitted by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 that possession is not likely to delivered by the next one year. At the same time, opposite parties no.1 and 2 have failed to prove, by placing on record any convincing evidence that they faced any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, they failed to offer and deliver possession of the unit, to the complainant by the stipulated date. Qua this very project, in a large number of cases, it has been found as a matter of fact that construction has come to stand still. Under these circumstances, it is held that since there was a material violation on the part of the opposite parties, in not offering and handing over possession of the unit by the stipulated date or by the time, this complaint was filed, the complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by him.

                In view of above facts of the case, the opposite parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him, as also escalation in prices.

11.         The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint or not. It is contended by Counsel for  opposite parties no.1 and 2 that Buyer’s Agreement was signed at New Delhi; demands in respect of making payment towards price of the unit, were also raised by Gurgaon office of the opposite parties, no cause of action has accrued  to the complainant within the territory of this Commission, as such, it is not open to this Commission, to adjudicate the claim raised by the complainant.  We are not going to accept this argument. In the present case, it is specifically stated that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the Public Limited Company having their Marketing Office at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. At the same time, it has been candidly admitted by opposite parties no.1 and 2, in their joint written reply that the payments were received by them, from the complainant, in respect of the unit, in question. Further, it was also clearly admitted by opposite parties no.1 and 2, in their joint written version that they were providing facilities to the purchasers, including the complainant, from their Marketing Office, located at Chandigarh. This admission of opposite parties no.1 and 2, is sufficient to prove that they were actively marketing the project, in question, from their Chandigarh office and have received payment in respect of the unit, in question, from the complainant. Furthermore, the fact of receiving substantial amount towards the said unit by opposite parties no.1 and 2 at their Regional Office at SCO 189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, is further fortified from a copy of the cheques Annexures C-4 colly. In view of existence of Marketing Office of opposite parties no.1 and 2 at Chandigarh and also 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.  Contention raised by Counsel for  opposite parties no.1 and 2, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
12.         To defeat claim of the complainant, another objection was raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, that the complainant is an investor, therefore, he would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainant is a property dealer and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. On the other hand, the complainant, in para no.4, of his complaint supported by his affidavit, has clearly stated that the said unit was purchased for his residential purpose, as he wanted to shift therein after his marriage. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2, 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. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
13.         Another objection was raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, that the dispute being related to contractual matter, the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the opposite parties, for purchasing the unit, in the manner, referred to above. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the  Agreement dated 16.09.2013, physical possession of the unit, was to be delivered by the opposite parties, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. latest by 15.09.2016 alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(ii) 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 complainant has 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 him, as he falls within the definition of a consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection of opposite parties no.1 and 2, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.         Another objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here, as stated above, that the complainant has ultimately sought refund of amount of Rs.40,18,307/- alongwith interest @18% p.a.; holding charges to the tune of Rs.3,04,425/-; Rs.10 lacs, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1 lac, aggregate value whereof fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Though, interest is not to be taken into consideration, while determining pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, yet, in the present case, even for the sake of arguments only, if the interest claimed is taken into consideration, then also the aggregate value of the relief claimed, does not exceeds Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
15.         As far as the liability of  opposite parties no.1 and 2, is concerned, it may be stated here that once it has been proved on record that  opposite parties no.1 and 2 were necessary parties to the Agreement; they also admittedly marketed the project, in question; and had also received payments from the complainant, towards the said unit, as such, they are equally liable alongwith opposite party no.3, to refund the amount paid by him (complainant). The objection raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, to the effect that they being only confirming parties are not liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
16.         As far as the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not their (opposite parties no.1 and 2) case, that they were ready with possession of the unit, to be delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date but the complainant wanted to rescind the contract, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/ financial constraints or for any personal reason, and is seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the opposite parties, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that since the complainant himself is rescinding the contract, as such, he is entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per law. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.
17.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not.  It may be stated here that since it is an admitted case that offer of possession of the unit, in question, could not be made, by the date of filing this complaint or even till date, for want of construction and basic amenities at the site, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant, in view of principle of law laid down, in  Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by limitation. The submission of Counsel for   opposite parties no.1 and 2, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18.         It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.40,18,307/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @18%) as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement dated 16.09.2013, 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 complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, (less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties, in case of delayed payment i.e. 18% compounded quarterly, as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement), till realization. 
19.         Since, it has already been held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest and compensation, as such, the argument raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 that the complainant is entitled to delayed compensation, for the period of delay in offering possession of the unit, and cannot seek refund of the amount paid, stands rejected.

                Similarly, under above circumstances, the complainant is also not held entitled for any holding charges, as claimed by him. Had he sought possession of the unit, in question, appropriate directions, in that regard could have been passed. However, since he has ultimately sought refund of the amount paid, as such, he is held entitled to the same, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses, which will take care of all the losses, suffered by him.

20.         No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.
21.         For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

In consumer complaint no. 392 of 2017 titled as Shivinder Singh Vs. Unitech Limited and others.  The opposite parties, jointly and severally, through their Managing Directors/Directors, are directed as under:-

1.       To refund the amount of Rs.40,18,307/- to  the  complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2.       To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
3.       To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the  complainant.
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.

 

In consumer complaint no.428 of 2017 titled as Subhash Awasthy Vs. Unitech Limited and another. The opposite parties, jointly and severally, through their Managing Directors/Directors, are directed as under:-

1.       To refund the amount of Rs.11,11,613/- to  the  complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2.       To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
3.       To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the  complainant.
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.

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

Pronounced.

25-Aug-17

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Rg.

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	428 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	19.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	25-Aug-17

 

Subhash Awasthy son of Late Sh.D.R. Awasthy, resident of E-2, Ambuja Colony, Village Dabrujee, P.O. Lodhi Majra, District Ropar (Punjab).

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, Marketing Office at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, PIN 160017, through its Managing Director.
2. Alice Developers Private Limited, Registered Office at Basement, 6,  Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 …..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

 

Argued by:-          Sh.Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.392 of 2017 titled as Shivinder Singh Vs. Unitech Limited and ors., this complaint has been partly accepted with cost. 

2.           Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 392 of 2017 shall also be placed on this file.
3.           Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 392 of 2017, 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.