Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/296/2015

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sharma

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	296  of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2016

 

Amrik Singh son of Sh.Surjit Singh, resident of House No.3603, Sector 71, Mohali, Punjab.

……Complainant

 

V e r s u s

 

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

….Opposite Parties

 

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

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

                 

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

Complaint case No.	:	297 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2016

 

Vinod Marya son of Sh.R.K. Marya resident of E-177, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

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

             .... Opposite Parties

Argued by:  Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the 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

           

            This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two consumer complaints bearing Nos.296  of 2015 titled as Amrik Singh Vs. Unitech Limited  and another and 297  of 2015 titled as  Vinod Marya Vs. Unitech Limited and another, filed by the complainant(s), alleging deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties (Builder), on the ground that despite making payment of substantial amount towards price of the unit allotted in their favour, possession thereof, was not delivered to them, for want of construction and necessary approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities.  

2.       Counsel for both the parties are in agreement that except difference of dates in moving application for allotment; execution of the Buyer's Agreement; payments made etc., the facts and legal issues, involved in both the cases, are the same and both the complaints can be disposed of, with one composite order. In view of the above, to dictate this order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint No.296 of 2015, titled as Amrik Singh Vs. Unitech Limited  and another.
3.       The project known as “UNIHOMES” in Mega Township, Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali, was launched by the opposite parties, advertising sale of residential units therein, in a space earmarked for the said purpose. It was propagated that in the said project, developed plots, villas, commercial complexes etc., will also be carved out/constructed. On enquiry, it was promised by representative of the opposite parties that possession of the unit, complete in all respects, will be handed over to the complainant, within a period of two years, from the date of signing the agreement. As such, on the rosy pictures shown and assurances given, the complainant signed an application for allotment of a residential unit, on 24.01.2010. Booking amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was also paid through cheque, drawn in favour of the opposite parties.
4.       The complainant was allotted flat No.0149, in Block-B, First Floor, measuring 1077 square feet, against total sale consideration of Rs.24,99,004/-, which included preferential location charges and external development charges. The complainant opted for construction linked plan, for payment, by installments. Buyer's Agreement was sent to the complainant, for his signatures on 11.05.2010. The said Agreement had already been signed by the opposite parties. It was stated that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, possession of the flat, in question, was to be delivered within 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Buyer's Agreement).

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

“That the possession of the Floor is proposed to be offered to the Purchaser(s) within 36 months of signing of these presents, subject to Force Majeure circumstances and upon registration of Sale Deed provided all amounts due and payable by the Purchaser(s) under this Agreement have been paid within the stipulated period. It is, however, understood between the Parties that various Floors shall be ready and shall be completed in phases and handed over to the Purchaser(s) accordingly.”

5.       As per Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, subject to terms and conditions thereof, possession of the flat, in question, was to be delivered to the complainant, in fulfilling his obligations, within 36 months, from the date of signing the same (Buyer's Agreement). It was further agreed vide Clause 4.a.(ii) that the date of possession can be extended, in case of default or negligence attributable to the complainant. It is further stated in this case that on making demands, further amount was paid to the opposite parties, towards price of the unit, in question, as is depicted in documents Annexures C-5 and C-6.
6.       When the complainant visited the site of the project, there was no development at the spot. On enquiry, he was informed that possession will be delivered on completion of 36 months, from the date of signing of Agreement. When this complaint was filed, it is specifically alleged that construction of the unit allotted to the complainant was not yet complete and there is no likelihood of offer of possession, in near future. Last date of handing over possession of the unit was fixed at 10.05.2013. It was further stated that construction of unit(s) in the said project was discontinued. No electric connection was got sanctioned by the opposite parties, from Competent Authority, in respect of the project, in question, at any time.
7.       It is specifically stated that to purchase a residential unit, the complainant had raised loan from the LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh, to the extent of Rs.18 lacs, against interest. For the said purpose, Tripartite Agreement, Annexure C-7, was also signed by the complainant, opposite parties and LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh, on 10.11.2010. To repay above said loan, the complainant continued to make payment, through installments, to the said Financial Institution.
8.       Upto 15.01.2015, the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.24,37,388/-. By stating that when it was noticed by the opposite parties that the possession of the unit cannot be handed over within the stipulated date, the opposite parties were duty bound to refund the amount paid to them, alongwith interest. When nothing was done, this complaint was filed in the first week of December 2015.
9.       By alleging as above, it was pleaded that there is deficiency in providing service, on the part of the opposite parties and their act also amounted to adopting unfair trade practice. An attempt was made to say that when construction was stopped at the site, it was duty of the opposite parties, to stop receiving installments from the LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh, however, it was not done and complainant was made to incur huge liability towards payment of interest.
10.       In the reply filed by the opposite parties, they admitted purchase of a built-up flat by the complainant; its price; and period of delivery of possession, as per the Buyer's Agreement dated 11.05.2010. It was stated that the Buyer's Agreement and Tripartite Agreements were executed between the parties, at New Delhi and demand for payment of installments, in respect of price of the unit, in question, was also raised by Gurgaon Office of the opposite parties. Stating as above, an attempt has been made to say that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint. (However, it is admitted in para no.1 (preliminary objections) that Branch/Marketing Office of the opposite parties is situated at SCO No.189-90-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh). It was further stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as he had purchased the property in dispute only to gain benefit in future. He is an investor and took a chance, upon noting that the price of the property was increasing, day by day, at that time, the said unit was purchased by him, in the said project. It was averred that consumer complaint was not maintainable, and only a suit for specific performance, in Civil Court, for enforcement of the Buyer's Agreement, can be instituted. In terms of Article 8.b. of the Buyer's Agreement, the opposite parties were entitled to extend time, to hand over possession of the unit, on account of force majeure circumstances. It was stated that the opposite parties, could not hand over possession of the flat, to the complainant, as there was meltdown of the economy worldwide, resulting into cash crunch throughout. It was further stated that delay also occurred, because of non-provision of electricity in the said project, by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). It was also averred that completion work of the unit, in question, is going on and possession will be given to the complainant in the near future. It was also alleged that time was not essence of the contract and that the opposite parties is making endeavour to hand over possession of the said flat, to the complainant. At the maximum, for delay in handing over possession of the flat, in question, the complainant can claim penalty charges, as provided under Article 4.c. of the Buyers Agreement. It was also averred that since the requisite Court fees, has not been paid by the complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone.

            However, in the reply filed, no commitment is made by the opposite parties, as to within how much time, construction will be completed and possession of the unit is going to be delivered to the complainant.

11.       The parties led evidence, in support of their case by filing their affidavits to support their averments. Large number of documents were also placed on record, to strengthen their respective pleas.
12.       After hearing Counsel for the parties and on going through evidence and record of the cases, very minutely, we are of the considered opinion, that both the complaints deserve to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 
13.       When addressing arguments, Counsel for the complainant submitted that, at site, as on today, the construction is complete, only upto the extent of 25% of the project. When this Commission confronted Counsel for the opposite parties with above arguments and she was asked to disclose, how much construction has been raised at the spot, she very hesitantly stated that the construction of unit(s) is complete upto 30% to 60% in the project, in question.

            Factual matrix of the case is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant had not defaulted in making payment of installments, towards price of the said unit. In the first instance, payment was made by the complainant, and, thereafter, under Tripartite Agreement aforesaid, the installments were paid by the LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh. In the reply filed by the opposite parties also, there is nothing to suggest that, at any point of time, default was committed by the complainant or by the LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh, in making payment towards price of the said unit. Above fact clearly demonstrates that the complainant had discharged his obligation, as per the Buyers Agreement and fault lies only with the opposite parties.

14.       It is not in dispute that as per Article 4 a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainant, by the opposite parties, within three years from 11.05.2010 i.e. on or before 10.05.2013. This complaint was filed thereafter. Contention of Counsel for the opposite parties that the opposite parties, in terms of Article 8.b. of the Buyer's Agreement were entitled to get the time extended, if construction is not raised, in time, on account of the reasons, beyond their control, is liable to be rejected. It is stated by Counsel for the opposite parties that there was a global market recession/melt-down in real estate sector. Prices of the property had gone down, as a result whereof, financial possession of the opposite parties went very week and on account of that, construction could not be raised, in time.

            It may be stated here that the said difficulty/ground would not fall under the definition of force majeure circumstances, for not completing the construction of unit(s). A change in economic or market circumstances affecting the profitability of a contract or the circumstance, with which the parties' obligations can easily be performed, is not regarded as a force majeure condition. Even otherwise, when the opposite parties had already received more than 97% of the sale consideration of the unit, in question, from the complainant, then it does not lie in their mouth, to say that they had faced extreme financial hardship, due to recession in the market, as far as the project, in question, is concerned.  Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended, stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the project, in which flat(s) was agreed to be sold to the complainant. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour, at the site of the project. There is no averment of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite parties or the contractors engaged by them, at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God, which could have delayed the completion of the project, within the time stipulated in the Buyer's Agreement.

15.       A similar plea, to counter the allegations that construction was not complete at the spot, were taken by the opposite parties in another consumer complaint bearing No.244 of 2015, titled as Manuj Doger vs. Unitech Limited and another, filed before this Commission on 14.10.2015. Vide order dated 03.12.2015, the said plea, taken in that case was rejected by this Commission, by making reference to judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, passed 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, wherein, it was observed 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. Furthermore, no benefit of above arguments,  can be given to the opposite parties because even as on today, construction is complete between 30 to 60 % of the total project, as has been admitted by Counsel for the opposite parties, during the arguments. In that situation, it can be presumed that even if the time is extended by few months, it would not be possible for the opposite parties, to deliver possession of built-up flat to the complainant. Such a plea, raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, at the time of arguments, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
17.        Another argument raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant would not fall within definition of a consumer, as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as he had purchased the unit, in question, to gain benefit, in future, by reselling the same, was also rejected by this Commission, in  Manuj Doger's case (supra), by observing as under:-

 

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

18.        In the present case also, it has been specifically stated by the complainant, that he had purchased the unit, for residential purpose, for him and his family members. As such, in the present case also, the  objection taken by the opposite parties, in its written reply, without any evidence having been placed on record in support thereto, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected
19.       An attempt was also made by the opposite parties, to defeat claim of the complainant, by raising an objection, that since the Buyer and Tripartite Agreements were executed between the parties, at New Delhi; and  also the demand for payment of price, in respect of the unit, in question, was raised by Gurgaon Office of the opposite parties, meaning thereby that no cause of action accrued to him, at Chandigarh, as such, this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint.

            According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him/her. In the instant case, it is evident, that the document Annexure C-18 (at page 18) forming part of the Buyer’s Agreement, as also payment in the sum Rs.65,000/- by way of cheque dated 03.07.2012 (at page 46), in respect of the said unit, had been received by the Regional Office of the opposite parties, at Chandigarh i.e. at Unitech Limited, SCO 189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160014. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

20.        It was also contended by Counsel for the opposite parties that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Buyer's Agreement, in respect of the unit, in question, i.e. immoveable property, only a suit, in the Civil Court was maintainable.

            The complainant hired the services of the opposite parties, for purchasing the flat, in question, and he was allotted the same for consideration. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, the opposite parties were required to hand over possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Buyer's Agreement). It was not that the complainant purchased the unit, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis”.  Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

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

21.       From the afore-extracted Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, it is evident that housing construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C.1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant had a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, could be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of a consumer. In this view of the matter, the submission of Counsel for the opposite parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
22.        Another objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that time was not essence of the contract is also devoid of merit, in view of Article 4.a.(i) of the Buyer's Agreement, referred to above, according to which, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same, subject to force majeure circumstances, failing which, as per Article 4.c. they were liable to pay penalty @Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area of the flat, in question, per month, for the period of delay. Since, it has already been held above, that the opposite parties had not encountered any force majeure circumstances, in respect of the project, in question, and did not deserve extension of time, for delivery of possession of the unit, in question, as such, it can very well be said that time was unequivocally made the essence of contract. The plea of Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard also stands rejected.
23.       As far as the objection taken by the opposite parties, to the effect that since the requisite Court fees, has not been paid by the complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone, is concerned, the same is also meritless. It may be stated here, that according to Rule 9A (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, if the total value of goods or services and the compensation claimed, is above twenty lacs and upto fifty lacs, the amount of fee payable is Rs.2000/-. As per the aggregate value of relief claimed by the complainant, in the instant complaint, the value is above twenty lacs and less than fifty lacs, meaning thereby that the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as fees. It is evident, from the record, that a sum of Rs.2000/-, vide Demand Draft dated 23.11.2015, was deposited by the complainant. The correct fee was, thus, paid by the complainant. The objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
24.       Now it is to be seen, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount paid by him and also to seek compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, suffered by him, at the hands of the opposite parties, as also escalation in prices or not. It is not in dispute that as per the Buyer’s Agreement, possession of the built-up unit was to be handed over to the complainant, complete in all respects, within 36 months, from the date of execution of the same. The said period came to an end on 10.05.2013. Thereafter, no extension of time, was sought by the opposite parties, to give possession of the unit. Construction of units at the site had remained incomplete. Even as per the statement made by Counsel for the opposite parties, during arguments, at the bar, construction in the project is complete between 30% to 60%, as on today. Expectations of the complainant to settle comfortably in his own house alongwith his family members, were shattered. Even at the time of arguments, no commitment has been made by the opposite parties, to handover possession of the unit, in near future. The opposite parties have miserably failed to discharge their liability and perform their duty. More than about 97% of price of the unit was paid by the complainant, to the opposite parties. No attempt was made to deliver possession of the unit, as per the promise made by the opposite parties. The said action amounts to committing material deficiency, in providing service, on the part of the opposite parties. On account of that, the complainant is 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.
25.       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.24,37,388/- 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, as per Article 2.c. of the Buyer’s Agreement, the opposite parties were charging interest @18% compounded quarterly, for the period of delay in making payment of installments. No firm date of delivery of possession of the flat, in question, is given to the complainant.  In view of above facts, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, to the tune of Rs.24,37,388/- alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly. (Interest granted is less than the penal interst being charged by the opposite parties).
26.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.     
27.       For the reasons recorded above, consumer complaint bearing No.296  of 2015 titled as Amrik Singh Vs. Unitech Limited  and another, is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite parties jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1. To  refund the amount of   Rs.24,37,388/-to  the complainant,  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 complainant, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, to the complainant.
4.  LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh, from which the loan was taken by the complainant, for payment of installments towards the said unit, shall have first charge on the amount, referred to in Clause (i) above, to the extent of unpaid loan amount, by him (complainant).
5. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made by the opposite parties, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i), alongwith penal interest @18% compounded quarterly, instead of 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onward, and @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

28.       Consumer complaint bearing No.297 of 2015 titled as  Vinod Marya Vs. Unitech Limited and another, is also partly accepted, with costs. In this case also, the opposite parties jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1. To  refund the amount of   Rs.46,51,456/-, to  the complainant,  alongwith interest @ 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onward.
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.30,000/-, to the complainant.
4.  LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chandigarh, from which the loan was taken by the complainant, for payment of installments towards the said unit, shall have first charge on the amount, referred to in Clause (i) above, to the extent of unpaid loan amount, by him (complainant).
5. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made by the opposite parties, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i), alongwith penal interest @18% compounded quarterly, instead of 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onward, and @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr. nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

29.       Certified copy of this order shall also be placed, in the file of consumer complaint bearing No.297 of 2015 titled as  Vinod Marya Vs. Unitech Limited and another. 
30.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
31.       The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

26.02.2016

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.