Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/78/2022

SUKHMANJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS ESTATES PVT. LTD AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

HARISH GOYAL ADV.

16 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	78 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	14.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	16.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.       Sukhmanjeet Singh aged about 34 years S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh R/o Begowal (Near Panchayat Ghar) Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala now resident of House No.5590. Sector 30 (w), Chandigarh.

 

2.       Dalip Kaur aged about 60 years W/o Sh. Gurnam Singh R/o Begowal (Near Panchayat Ghar) Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala now resident of House No.5590, Sector 30 (w), Chandigarh.

 

….Complainants.

Versus

 

1.       WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director Baljit Singh Sandhu.

 

2.       Baljit Singh Sandhu, Managing Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

3.       Rajiv Bajaj, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

4.       Devinder Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

5.       Parvinder Singh Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

6.       Bikram Singh Minhas, through WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A- 12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

 

….Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued By:-

Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 5.

Opposite Party No.6 exparte vide order dated 31.03.2023.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Brief facts :-

                   The complainants booked flat No.WEIH/801, Tower A, at Imperial Heights, Sector 115, SAS Nagar, Mohali, total price whereof was Rs.52,93,592/- i.e. (Rs.50,40,142/- + 2,53,450/- as other Charges). The complainants paid the entire amount on the date of Builder Buyer Agreement dated 15/11/2011, Annexure C-1. Annexure C-2 is the allotment letter. As per terms and conditions of said agreement, possession was to be delivered within 30 months, after completing the construction, from the date of builder buyer agreement. All other expenses including stamp duty for executing the sale deed was to be borne by the company i.e. WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd. It has been stated that despite numerous visits and requests by the complainants, possession has not been offered till date; even the site is not complete and flats are incomplete although some construction work is going on. The complainants gave representation dated 15.06.2020, Annexure C-3, to the opposite parties and made number of visits to handover the possession and also to pay the damages for delayed possession but till date, neither possession has been offered nor any reply given as it has not been fully developed and construction on the site is still going on. Even exact status of project has not been disclosed by the opposite parties. It has further been stated that in the earlier case filed, the opposite parties gave reply that they have allotted the Flat, after cancelling the same, in favour of Bikram Singh Minhas but neither any date of cancellation nor date of allotment has been given by the opposite parties. Even full details of Bikram Singh Minhas have not been given.  This is only a sham transaction to deny the relief of the complainant.

2]                In the earlier reply, the opposite parties have stated that they requested number of time for the payment but the complainants neither received any notice for the same nor received any notice for cancellation of the flat. It has further been stated that even no order of cancellation has been received, therefore, if the flat has been cancelled, then the same is also null and void. It has further been stated that huge delay in handing over the possession of the flat by the opposite parties has also deprived of the enjoyment of the property, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3]                The complainants have sought directions to the opposite parties to handover the physical possession of the flat after completing the development work on the spot and completing the flat in all respects; pay the compensation @12% p.a. on the amount deposited for the delayed period of possession or in alternative, refund the entire amount received i.e. Rs.52,93,592/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation. Besides, it has also been prayed that if any allotment is made in favour of Bikram Singh Minhas or if any cancellation of flat is done, the same be declared null and void. Apart from above reliefs, the complainants have also claimed Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation towards the number of visits, for mental pain, agony and sufferings etc. for visits which the complainant has to made to the sites of the opposite parties and for damages for physical as well as mental harassment of the complainant besides Rs.44,000/- as cost of litigation.

Reply of opposite parties No.1 to 5 :- 

4]                In their joint reply, opposite parties No.1 to 5 have raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as firstly complainant No.1 is son of Gurnam Singh & complainant No.2 is the wife of Gurnam Singh and a false story has been concocted to get illegal benefits which are not admissible in the eyes of law; and secondly, no monetary consideration has ever been passed by the complainants in favour of the opposite parties and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party Gurnam Singh who never deposited the required cheque/draft as sale consideration and the flat No.801 is already allotted in the name of Sh. Bikram Singh Minhas accordingly.

5]                On merits, it has been pleaded that one Mr. Gurnam Singh, Deputy Director, E.D. Department, Sector 18, Chandigarh had visited the office of opposite parties No.1 to 5 along with the complainant i.e. Sukhmanjit Singh (Son) and Dalip Kaur (Wife) and showed their interest in buying one Flat in the Housing Project Imperial Heights, Mohali, being launched by opposite parties No.1 to 5 Company. It has further been stated that moreover, the said Gurnam Singh at the time of visit, introduced himself as a Deputy Director, E.D. Department, Chandigarh and after discounts, an amount of Rs.52,93,592/- was settled i.e. Rs.50,40,142/- + Rs.2,53,450/- as other charges. It has further been stated that  the said Gurnam Singh requested the OP Company to make the Allotment Letter & Builder Buyer Agreement of the said Flat in the name of Sukhmanjit Singh and Dalip Kaur and the said documents were taken away by Gurnam Singh. It has further been stated that Gurnam Singh informed the OP Company that he would be sending the draft/Cheque as regards the payment of the said Flat, however neither any Draft nor any Cheque was delivered as promised either by Gurnam Singh or by the present Complainant. It has further been stated that the Sales Team contacted the present complainants and Gurnam Singh a number of times as regards payment of the said flat and finally, informed that certain inquiries were being carried out by CBI against Gurnam Singh and Complainant No.2 with regard to their Source of Income and accordingly, Gurnam Singh and the complainants informed the OP Company that they would not be able to buy the said flat in question and the same be treated as cancelled. It has further been stated that after getting the said information, the Office of OP Company allotted the said Flat No.A-801, Block A, Imperial Heights, Mohali to Mr. Bikram Singh Minhas & another and the matter was closed. It has further been stated that no person would stay silent for more than 9 years for getting possession of the property in case full sale consideration amount had been paid. It has further been stated that the complainant had no occasion for personally visiting the OP Company or contacted the Company through phone as regards possession of Plot and the complainant be put to strict proof for the same.

6]                It has further been stated that the complainants had earlier filed same matter before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, vide CC No.190 of 2020, however, after final arguments in the case, the same was got dismissed as withdrawn. It has further been stated that the complainants are possessing disproportionate assets to their known sources of income through corrupt and illegal means by abusing their official position, moreover the complainants had no cause of action to approach before this Commission as they failed to make full sale consideration of the plot against which they allegedly are seeking possession.

7]                Pleading no deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice on their part, opposite parties No.1 to 5 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

Replication :-

8]                The complainants filed replication wherein they reiterated the averments made in the complaint and repudiated those as stated in their written statement.

Issues involved :-

9]                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the following issues arise for consideration by this Commission:-

1. Whether there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties?
2. Whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party Gurnam Singh?
3. Whether there is deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 5?

10]               Relationship of consumer and service provider or not?

                   Perusal of record transpires that Agreement for Allotment was signed by the parties on 15.11.2011 and vide allotment letter dated 15.11.2011, (Allotment No.WEIH/A-801) opposite party No.1 – WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd. allotted Apartment No.801, Type 3-BHK in Tower A, measuring 1737.98 sq. ft. approx. at the basic sale price of Rs.50,40,143/- plus Rs.2,53,450/- as other applicable charges. As per Clause 7 of Terms and Conditions appended to the allotment letter, the completion of the apartment was to be done as per the completion date subject to receiving the entire price and other payments as per the terms of allotment. Further as per Clause 18, the sale deed of the apartment was to be got executed in favour of the allottee by the company after the entire payment and dues in respect of the allotment are cleared by the allottee. Clause pertaining to Possession is Clause 20, which reads thus:-

“20.   The possession of the Apartment will be given      within 30 months or with an extended period of 6 months from the date of builder Buyer Agreement”.

11]              The next document on record is Allotment Letter for Apartment, Annexure C-2, wherein the opposite party No.1 admitted the receipt of the amounts of Rs.50,40,142/- & Rs.2,53,450/- in Clause 3 thereof, which reads thus:-

“3.     The basic price of the said Apartment is Rs.50,40,142/- + Rs.2,53,450/- (other charges) against which you have already deposited a sum of Rs.50,40,142/- + Rs.2,53,450/- (other charges) as initial deposits/Earnest Money at the time of application.”

12]              Once receipt of the amount of Rs.50,40,142/- +          Rs.2,53,450/- (other charges) has been established on record and admitted by opposite parties No.1 to 5, therefore, the objection raised that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, is totally baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The plea raised that neither the complainants nor Gurnam Singh paid the sale consideration seems to be an afterthought and is, thus, rejected for the simple reason that opposite parties No.1 to 5 have themselves admitted receipt of the amount from the complainants. Thus, the complainants are very much consumer vis-à-vis opposite parties No.1 to 5 inasmuch as they availed the services of opposite parties No.1 to 5 against consideration paid. Therefore, this objection stands rejected.

13]              Non-joinder of necessary party- Gurnam Singh

                   Now coming to the next objection that the complaint is liable        to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party Gurnam Singh, it may be stated here that the complainants are the original allottees, to whom the allotment of the apartment, in question, was made by opposite parties No.1 to 5 and they have filed the present complaint seeking physical possession of the flat in question. Sh. Gurnam Singh is the father of complainant No.1 and husband of complainant No.2. Thus, we do not find him to be necessary party to the case. This objection, therefore, stands rejected being not tenable.

14]              Now coming to the merits of the case, as already stated above that the possession of the Apartment in question was to be given by opposite parties No.1 to 5 within 30 months or within extended period of 6 months from the date of Builder Buyer Agreement i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.2011 uptill 14.11.2014, which has not been delivered to the complainants till date. It may be stated here that it is settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of construction and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/approvals have been obtained in respect thereof, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. As stated above, it is very strange that in the present case not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by opposite parties No.1 to 5 to prove that the apartment in question is complete and even the development works and basic amenities have been completed at the project site. In case, the construction of the apartment in question, development/construction activities were undertaken and completed at the project site by the stipulated date or till the date of filing complaint by the complainants or even thereafter, then it was for opposite parties No.1 to 5, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, the construction of the apartment in question, all these development/construction activities, are completed at the site or not but it failed to do so.

15]              Not only as above, it is settled law that before offering possession of the residential unit/plot, the builder/developer is legally bound to obtain completion certificate from the competent authorities. An allottee is not obliged to take possession of a residential plot/flat, unless it is complete in every respect, including the completion certificate. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Inderjit Singh Bakshi Versus S.M.V. Agencies Private Limited, FA No. 729 of 2013, decided on 30.11.2015. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-

‘….An allottee is not obliged to take possession of a flat unless it is complete in every respect, including the completion certificate….’

16]              The Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) also, categorically held that legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of completion certificate issued by the competent authority. It was held in Para No.5 as follows:

5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at any time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat. The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite completion certificate had not been obtained by that date......."

17]              Furthermore, Section 14 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA") deals with responsibility of the builder/promoter to obtain completion and occupation certificate from the competent authority, which reads as under:

14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-

(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and

(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."

18]              However, in the present case, no completion certificate and occupation certificate, if any, issued by the competent authority has been produced by opposite parties No.1 to 5 on the record, which itself is violation of above reproduced Section 14 of PAPRA. Even till the date of arguments in this complaint, no completion certificate has been produced before this Commission. Vide letter dated 13.06.2020, Annexure C-3, the complainants requested opposite parties No.1 to 5 to deliver the possession of the flat. In this letter, they also stated that on visiting the site number of times, it is found that the flats are not completed yet despite the fact that they have fully paid the entire price on 15.11.2011 itself. Even, no documents have been placed on record by opposite parties No.1 to 5, to show that they have communicated the status of the completion of the project/project report, along with proof of development to the complainants at any point of time. The complainants have already paid the entire sale price and other charges. Opposite parties No.1 to 5 have further failed to prove, by placing any document on record, that the development of the project was completed within the stipulated timeframe. However, there was no whisper of offer of possession from the side of opposite parties No.1 to 5. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above noted authorities and the position stated above, without issuance of such a certificate by the competent authority, opposite parties No.1 to 5 cannot be said to be in a legal position to hand over possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants. However, in the instant case, the possession has still not been offered to the complainants and there has been a huge delay of more than 9 years in offering the same, what to talk of its delivery.

19]              Apart from what has been discussed above, it is the case of opposite parties No.1 to 5 that the complainants and Gurnam Singh informed the Company that they would not be able to buy the said flat in question and the same be treated as cancelled and after getting the said request, the flat in question i.e. flat No.A-801 was allotted to Mr. Bikram Singh Minhas & another and the matter was closed but there is nothing on record to establish the same. It is further pleaded that CBI case has been registered against complainant No.1 and Gurnam Singh for having acquired assets disproportionate, to his known sources of income through corrupt and illegal means by abusing his official position. On the other hand, in the replication filed, the complainants have stated that opposite parties No.1 to 5 are relying upon FIR dated 27.11.2017 and it was stated that Gurnam Singh had refused to purchase the flat but present allotment letter is dated 15.11.2011, which means that (although not admitted) from 15.11.2011 to 27.1.2017 for six years, opposite parties have been making requests to Gurnam Singh and after that, Gurnam Singh stated that he would not be able to buy the flat, which is again highly improbable. It is further stated that all is just a false affidavit by the opposite parties just to deny the claim of the complainant.

20]              In this regard, it may be stated that registration of FIR has nothing to do with the instant case. We have already held the payment of the amount made by the complainants to be valid and legal. Whatever allegations have been leveled in the FIR is the subject matter of investigation, which in our considered view, has no bearing on the merits of the case. It is a simple case of not offering or delivering possession of the flat in question to the complainants. Therefore, this Commission is not going into the allegations made in the FIR.

21]              As already stated above, once it is established on record that the complainants have paid the entire sale consideration, therefore, the action of opposite parties No.1 to 5 to allot the flat of the complainants to Mr. Bikram Singh Minhas etc., is totally illegal and arbitrary. However, there is nothing on record to ascertain, whether Mr. Bikram Singh Minhas etc. have got the sale deed of the said flat done or not.

22]              Thus, in view of findings given above, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the unit in question and the project is complete in all respects and also in the absence of any completion or occupation certificate, it can safely be said that there is gross deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 5.

23]          On account of delay in actual delivery of possession within the stipulated period, the complainants suffered mental agony, hardships and financial loss. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022, The Hon’ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“……Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to pay interest @9% w.e.f. 31.03.2014, i.e., the expected date of delivery of the possession, on the amount deposited by the respective Complainant till 02.09.2017, i.e., the date on which the possession of the Flat was offered by the Opposite Party Developer, within two months from today.  The Opposite Party Developer shall also pay cost of ₹25,000/- to the Complainants in each case.   Since we have awarded delay compensation till the date of offer of possession instead of actual physical possession of the Flat, the Opposite Party Developer shall not be entitled for any delay interest from the date of offer of possession till the date of payment made by the Complainant for taking physical possession of the Flat.…..”

In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. In the present case, the complainants have purchased the flat in question, as far as back in November 2011. We are in 2023 and still, the complainants are empty handed and they are forced to approach this Commission for redressal of their grievance. Opposite parties No.1 to 5 have played fast and loose with the complainants and have caused harassment and mental agony to them, which is unacceptable and this practice needs to be deprecated. In our considered opinion, if we grant interest @9% p.a. to the complainants on the entire amount deposited by them, from the due date of possession onwards till delivery of possession thereof, that will meet the ends of justice.

24]               For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and opposite parties No.1 to 5, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1. To deliver actual physical possession of flat No.WEIH/801, Tower A, at Imperial Heights, Sector 115, SAS Nagar, Mohali, to the complainants, complete in all respects, after obtaining occupation and completion certificates from the competent Authority, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

or in alternative, if is not feasible at this stage to deliver possession of the aforesaid flat in case the said Sh. Bikram Singh Minhas had got the sale deed executed, then, opposite parties No.1 to 5 shall deliver actual physical possession of some other flat to the complainants having same specification in the same project of the choice of the complainants, without charging anything from them towards the price of the said flat, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the complainants opt for a flat of much higher price and specification, then, they shall pay the difference of the amount etc. to opposite parties No.1 to 5 before taking possession thereof.

2. To pay to the complainants, interest @9% p.a. on the amount deposited i.e. (Rs.50,40,142/- + 2,53,450/- as other Charges), starting from 14.11.2014 till 31.05.2023, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainants.
3. To pay to the complainants, interest @9% p.a. on the amounts deposited w.e.f. 01.06.2023, onwards (per month), by the 10^th of the following month till actual delivery of physical possession of the flat in question or the alternative flat, complete in all respects. 
4. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

25]              However, still we do not want to leave the complainants in lurch. The question, which, time and again, is coming to our consideration is that had there been no flat(s) available with opposite parties No.1 to 5, whether it may be the flat in question or the alternate flat, then what would be the remedy available with the complainants. In that situation, the only relief which can be granted to the complainants is the refund of the entire deposited amount alongwith interest. The complainants have also sought refund of the amount and to secure their interest, in failure to comply the earlier part of our order with regard to delivering actual physical possession of the flat, in question or the alternative flat apart from compliance of other reliefs, as a third alternative relief, opposite parties No.1 to 5, jointly and severally, shall refund the entire amount of Rs.52,93,592/- i.e. (Rs.50,40,142/- + 2,53,450/- as other Charges) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019, decided on 7.4.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interests shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the Consumer for enhancement of interest.”

Further, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs. ANKIT JAIN, First Appeal No.185 of 2020 decided on 17.05.2022, reduced the interest rate awarded by this Commission on the deposited amount(s) from 12% to 9% and the penal interest from 15% to 12%. Following the case of Ankit Jain (supra), similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Vs. KAPIL DUA, First Appeal No.1516 of 2018 decided on 19.12.2022. Not only this, in a recent case M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & ORS. VS. JORAWER SINGH MANN, First Appeal No.1800 of 2017 decided on 20.03.2023, the Hon’ble National Commission while reducing the rate of interest from 13% to 9%, ordered refund of the amount alongwith interest @9% p.a.  from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment.

26]              Accordingly, as a third alternative relief, we direct opposite parties No.1 to 5, jointly and severally as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.52,93,592/- i.e. (Rs.50,40,142/- + 2,53,450/- as other Charges) to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit onwards, without deducting any TDS, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount shall carry 3% penal interest i.e. 12% p.a. (9% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.), from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
2. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
3. However, it is further made clear that in case the complainants have availed loan facility from any Bank/Financial Institution, for making payment towards price of the plot in question, it will have the first charge on the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainants.

27]               Since, no allegation is made against opposite party No.6, therefore, the complaint against opposite party No.6 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

28]              Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this complaint stands disposed of having become infructuous.

29]               Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

30]               File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

16.05.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[RAJESH  K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad