Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/127/2016

Sanjeev Kumar Mangla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	127 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	04.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	02.06.2016

 

1. Sanjeev Kumar Mangla son of Sh.Pawan Kumar, resident of 1507, Sector 51, Chandigarh.
2. Sanjay Bansal son of Sh.Dharam Pal Bansal, resident of House No.1224, Sector 21, Panchkula.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

 

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

              ....Opposite Party

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

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

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

 

Complaint case No.	:	128 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	04.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	02.06.2016

 

Surinder Kaur wife of Sh.Jatinder Singh, resident of 4644 Parma In Frisco, TX, 75034, USA, at present resident of Jatinder Poultry Farm, Abohar Road, Muktsar, through her special power of attorney holder Joginder Kaur daughter of Sukhraj Singh, resident of H.No.853, Sector-38A, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1. Unitech Limited, Regd. Office 6, Community Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.
2. Unitech Limited (Uniworld City Mohali), Marketing Office at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer.

              ....Opposite Parties

 

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

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

      By this order, we propose to dispose of, following cases:-

	CC/127/2016	Sanjeev Kumar Mangla and anr.	Vs	Unitech Limited
	CC/128/2016	Surinder Kaur	Vs	Unitech Limited and anr.

 

2.       Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same.
3.       At the time of arguments, on 25.05.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in both the complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, these two complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
4.       Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer complaint bearing No. 127 of 2016, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Mangla and anr. Vs. Unitech Limited. The complainants purchased a residential plot, measuring 502.32 square yards, in the project of the opposite party, known as Gardens, situated in Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali. The said plot was purchased by the complainants, in resale and the sale was transferred in their favour, by the opposite party. It was so reflected in letter dated 23.02.2008 Annexure C-1. They were allotted plot no.0016, Block C, in the said project, for an amount of Rs.71,58,060/-. Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 24.04.2008. As per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, the opposite party was to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. from 24.04.2008. Thus, possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before 23.04.2011. The complainants continued to make payments, as and when asked by the opposite party and by 29.08.2008, they had paid an amount of Rs.35,79,030/-. Then they came to know that the land underneath the plot allotted to them, is not ownership of the opposite party. On account of that they stopped making further payments. The complainants wrote numerous letters to the opposite party, that they be intimated qua actual location of their plot, so that they could make further payment, but to no avail. When nothing happened, the complainants sent legal notice dated 01.07.2010, in the matter. During discussion, it came to the notice of the complainants that the plot allotted to them is not the ownership of the opposite party and, accordingly, they were relocated to plot no.110 in Block-B, Sector 97, Mohali (in short the relocated unit). Thereafter, the complainants made payment of the remaining amount. Another Buyer’s Agreement Annexure C-6, was signed between the parties on 05.01.2012. It was stated that possession of the relocated unit will be delivered within two months, from the date of signing of fresh Agreement Annexure C-6. Thereafter, when the complainants visited the site, they were shocked to see that there was no development, as projected. When on request made, nothing was done, the complainants filed the instant complaint, seeking refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
5.       Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein numerous preliminary objections were taken stating that since the plot, in dispute, is situated in Mohali; Buyer’s Agreement was executed at New Delhi; and even the demand for payment was also raised from that place; payments were also made through bank in an account maintained by the opposite party at New Delhi; Regional Office of opposite party has only accepted the payments, as facilitator for convenience of the customers but the payments received were forwarded to the Head Office situated at Gurgaon, this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission was also disputed, by stating that if the relief sought, including interest, is added, the same exceeds Rs.1 crore. It is asserted that the unit, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the  complainants would not fall within definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of 1986 Act.
6.       On merits, it is admitted that the  complainants had purchased a residential unit, from the opposite party, in the manner, referred to above. It was also admitted that the complainants were relocated to plot no.110, Block B, in the said project. Fact qua price of the unit, as mentioned in the complaint is also admitted. It is stated that consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court, could adjudicate the dispute, in question. It is admitted that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, in the first instance, the opposite party was to hand over possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), subject to force majeure conditions. It was also admitted that  period of two months was fixed for delivery of possession of the relocated unit, from the date of execution of fresh Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.01.2012. i.e. on or before 04.03.2012. It is stated that time was not the essence of contract, as the period mentioned in the Agreement(s), for delivery of possession of the unit, was only tentative. It is clarified that the opposite party could not hand over possession of the unit to the  complainants, by the stipulated date, as there was global meltdown/recession of the economy worldwide, resulting into cash crunch throughout and also due to some 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 development work and providing of the basic amenities was delayed. It is stated that 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 said unit, to the complainants. It is averred that it is well within the knowledge of the complainants that for any delays, stipulated penalty has been provided in the Agreement, which safeguarded their rights.  It was 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. The remaining averments are denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
7.       In the rejoinder filed by the complainants, they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the opposite party.
8.       The parties led evidence in support of their cases, by way of filing their respective affidavits, alongwith which, number of documents were attached. 
9.       On completion of the proceedings, arguments of the parties were heard, in detail.
10.       At the time of arguments, besides raising arguments, as reflected in the replies filed, an additional issue was raised by Counsel for the opposite party (in both the cases), that in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [as amended vide the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015], to settle disputes between the parties, the matter is required to be referred to an Arbitration, as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the same (complaint).

            We will first deal with this issue and then proceed further. It may be stated here that the objection raised by the opposite party, in this regard, deserves rejection, in view of the judgment passed by this Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016 and Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Complaint no.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016, wherein this issue was dealt, in detail, while referring various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the National Commission, New Delhi, and also Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ultimately it was held by this Commission that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was also so said by the National Commission, recently, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in  Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

              In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected.

11.       The next  question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint could be filed by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case,  it is evident, that out of the deposited amount, part amount of Rs.16,333/-, in respect of the unit, in question, was received by Regional Office/Marketing Office of the opposite party, at Chandigarh i.e. “Unitech Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017”, vide cheque dated 04.01.2012. Further, it is also evident from letter dated 04.01.2012 Annexure C-8 that copies of the Buyer’s Agreement were received by Regional Office of the opposite party at Chandigarh. It is further evident that the document Annexure C-9 (Customer Ledger), was also issued by Chandigarh Office of the  opposite party. Not only this, it is further evident, that both the Agreements Annexures C-2 and C-6, were executed between the complainants and  Marketing Office, Unitech Limited at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17C, Chandigarh. Above facts have frankly been admitted by the opposite party, in its written reply. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the opposite party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 
12.        Another objection raised by Counsel for the opposite party, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here, that the complainants have sought refund of the amount of Rs.69,04,110/-, paid by them, towards price of the same, alongwith interest @18% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony  physical harassment and deficiency in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, aggregate value whereof [excluding the interest claimed] came to be around Rs.75,04,110/- and, as such, fell below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, for the reasons given hereinafter.

            Now, the question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, interest @18% p.a., claimed by the complainants, on the amount of Rs.69,04,110/-,   aforesaid, was required to be added, to the value of the reliefs claimed, or not, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission.  In Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the facts were that the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, claiming an amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, with interest @18% per annum, on this amount, from the date of claim, till realization. It also claimed suitable damages, on account of loss caused to it. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide order dated 08.08.2002, disposed of the complaint, with liberty reserved to the complainant, to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that if interest @18% P.A. was allowed, on the amount of Rs.18,33,000/- it (amount) will exceed Rs.20 lacs (at that time the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upto Rs.20 lacs), for which it had no pecuniary Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant/appellant filed the aforesaid appeal. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid appeal, held as under:-

“Bare reading of the prayer made would show that the interest claimed by appellant pertains to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future. Rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of State Commission and the stage for exercise of such a discretion would be the time when the complaint is finally disposed of. Thus, the State Commission had acted erroneously in adding to the amount of Rs.18,33,000/- the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till date of filing of complaint for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction before reaching the said stage. Order under appeal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint is now to be dealt with by the District Forum instead of State Commission.

Accordingly, while accepting appeal, the order dated 8.8.2002 is set aside. On complaint being returned by the State Commission, the appellant is permitted to file it before the appropriate District Forum for being decided on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs”.

            Not only this, a similar question regarding pecuniary Jurisdiction, came up for consideration before this Commission, in a case titled as Karnail Singh  and another Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2014 decided on 09.04.2014. In that case also, an objection was raised by the Opposite Parties (Emaar MGF Land Limited) that since the complainants,  had sought refund of amount of Rs.62,60,750/- alongwith interest @24% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, alongwith compensation and litigation costs, as such, if the reliefs are clubbed together alongwith interest claimed, the aggregate value therefore fell above Rs.1 crore, and as such, this Commission had no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In that case, while rejecting said objection of the Opposite Parties, this Commission, by placing reliance on Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.' case (supra),  came to the conclusion that it had pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and ordered refund of the amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation costs, vide order dated 09.04.2014. Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties (Emaar MGF Land Limited) against the order dated 09.04.2014, before the National Commission, was dismissed with punitive damages of Rs.5 lacs. Still feeling aggrieved, the Opposite Parties, filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.29392 of 2014, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in limine, vide order dated 14.11.2014. In this manner, the findings given by this Commission in Karnail Singh and another's case (supra), by placing reliance on Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case (supra), to the effect that it has pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, were upheld by the National Commission, and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Recently, in the case of Denis Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Consumer Case No. 196 of 2016, decided On 08 Mar 2016, it was clearly held by the National Commission that interest component being imaginary, will not be added in the reliefs sought by the consumers, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The principles of law, laid down, in the cases referred to above, are fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In view of the above, the submission of Counsel for the opposite party, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

13.        To defeat claim of the  complainants, another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party, that the complainants are speculators, 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, or not.

            It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainants are the property dealers, and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. 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. 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. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  Revision Petition No. 3861 of 2014, decided on 26.08.2015. 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 the opposite party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

14.       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  fresh Agreement dated 05.01.2012, the opposite party was liable to deliver physical possession of the relocated developed unit, within a period of 02 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. latest by 04.03.2012, 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 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 of the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

15.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, Annexure C-3, in the first instance, the opposite party, was to hand over possession of the unit, in question, to the  complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. by 23.04.2011. However, thereafter, as per fresh Agreement dated 05.01.2012, possession of the relocated unit was to be delivered within a period of two months therefrom (05.01.2012) i.e. latest by 04.03.2012. Admittedly, possession of the relocated unit, was not delivered to the  complainants, by by 04.03.2012 or even till date. Even, 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 they failed to complete the 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). 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 had not obtained necessary approvals/sanctions from the PSPCL, as a result whereof, it was not provided with electricity, for the project in question. Secondly, when the opposite party, had already received more than 95% of the sale consideration of the unit, in question, from the allottee(s), 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. It is not that the opposite party was, in the first instance, required to 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 of unit(s). 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 of the project, in which flat(s)/plot(s) were agreed to be sold to the consumers. 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 Agreement(s). 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.”.

16.       The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The opposite party, therefore, cannot take shelter under Clause 8.b. of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. By making a misleading statement, that  the possession of unit, in question, would be, in the first instance, delivered within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement Annexure C-3,  and, thereafter, of the relocated unit, by 04.03.2012, 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.
17.       An objection was also taken by the opposite party that time was not the essence of contract. It may be stated here that, it was clearly mentioned in Clause 2.d. of the both the Agreements aforesaid, that time is essence of the contract. It was stated under the said Clause that “It shall be incumbent on the Purchasers to comply with the terms and conditions of payment and/or other terms and conditions of sale as stipulated in the Agreement”. Terms and conditions of the Agreement(s) are binding upon both the parties, and no one can wriggle out of the same. At the same time, it is also very pertinent to mention here that as per Clause 4.a. of the Agreement, it was clearly mentioned that, subject to force majeure conditions, possession of the unit, was to be handed over to the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement). Not only this, vide subsequent Agreement dated 05.01.2012 also, in unambiguous terms it was mentioned that possession of the unit, was to be handed over to the complainants, within a period of 2 months, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement) i.e. on or before 04.03.2012. However, despite that, the opposite party miserably failed to do so. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. The objection taken by the opposite party, in this regard, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.69,04,110/-, deposited by them. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party 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, and firm date of delivery of possession of the relocated unit, could not be given to them (complainants). The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of actual physical possession of the unit. As stated above, the opposite party failed to prove, by placing on record, any cogent and convincing material, that it encountered any force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, possession of the unit, in question, was delayed. On the other hand, stand taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has been negated by this Commission, while giving detailed findings. The opposite party, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The  complainants are, thus, 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.

18.       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.69,04,110/-,  i.e. more than about 95% of the sale consideration, 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(s), 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, to the tune of Rs.69,04,110/-alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits (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.
19.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, in both the cases.    
20.       For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-.

 

Consumer complaint bearing No. 127 of 2016, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Mangla and anr. Vs. Unitech Limited- The opposite party, is directed as under:-

 

1. To refund the amount Rs.69,04,110/-, to  the  complainants, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.

 

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.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- 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.

 

 

     

Consumer complaint bearing No. 128 of 2016, titled as Surinder Kaur Vs. Unitech Limited and anr- The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.55,22,430/-, to  the  complainant, alongwith interest @12% (as prayed) compounded quarterly,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.

 

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.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- 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 @12%, 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.

21.       However, it is made clear that, if the  complainants, in both the cases, 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).
22.       Certified copy of this order be placed on the file of consumer complaint bearing No. 128 of 2016, titled as Surinder Kaur Vs. Unitech Limited and anr.
23.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
24.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

02.06.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg.