The beneficial legislation of Consumer Protection Act aims to reducing the grievances of the all classes of customers by providing them the preferential treatment. According to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer dispute is the entity where the consumer/ customers have been given the convenient safeguards against ample exploitation like bad customer service, faulty goods or any unfair trade practices. The interest of the customers is protected by setting up, the three tier quasi-judicial consumer Redressal machinery which are at national, state and district levels as per section 9 of Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) has been enacted in light of certain concerns related to public policy and the benefit of consumer.
Now we have seen the pleadings and documents of the present case. The complainants address is mentioned in the receipt dated 7 October 1996. Thereafter the complainants have other addresses too. There is one address of Dubai .So it is clear that if any notice has been sent by the opposite party regarding cancellation, it should have been sent to all the addresses of the complainant when there are more than one address of the complainant. The complainant has stated that when she received a letter offering delivery of possession, she came to India but found that the flat is incomplete or in a very bad condition. No allottee shall take an incomplete house when he has paid for the complete house. It was duty of the opposite party 1st to get the completion certificate and other no objection certificate from the various departments as required and thereafter a notice should have sent to the allottee inviting him/her to take possession of the flat/plot on a specific day. In this case this has not been done. So it is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
If an offer has been given to a person of a specific area, it is hardly to believe that the area later on increased our decreased. If layout has been sanctioned how can any be decreased and increased? It means that it is a hidden play of the builders to increase our decreased area as per their choice. So many conditions are there in the memorandum of the deed which is hardly read over and explain to the allottees. If there is any particular condition it should have been highlighted or it should have been written in bold letters so that the allottees could know about the consequences of these conditions. If the builder wants to of lies any person the usually undergo such tricks and thereafter cancels the allotment of a particular allottee in order to oblige someone else.
In the present case the opposite party, in their written statement, has accepted to receive ₹ 14,20,159/– from the complainant . As per allotment letter dated 25 November 1997 , the basic cost of the house has been disclosed as ₹ 1,605,600/–. At the time of allotment the area mentioned was three 359 yd² or about 300 m². Later on this area increased to 485.67 yd² and additional payment was sought from the complainant. It is very hard to believe that the area increased by more than hundred square yards. The opposite and the has not been given to the complainant either to pay the additional charges or to surrender her flat. Regarding added we have discussed earlier that it was the duty of the party to send the intimation letter to the complainant at her personal address as well as to the revised address in which the opposite party failed to so. And in the garb of this they cancelled the original allotment in favour of the complainant and they resold it someone else . So it is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant has stated that the opposite party be directed to hand over the said flat to her but in the present scenario it is difficult to get back the flat from the bona filed purchaser because the purchaser did not know about all these things and it is also clear that a party must have made earning by reselling it. So the opposite party may be directed either to provide a flat in the same locality of same measurement or refund the amount with penalty, compensation, damages et cetera et cetera. There are different verdicts of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble NCDRC in this regard.
The allotment letter is of 25 November 1997 . There is no averment in the pleadings about the date of delivery of possession. So in such cases three years is sufficient for completion of the flat and handing over delivery possession of the flat. Generally the builders provide two years to complete the construction and to hand over the possession. In this case we presume it as three years which is reasonable and genuine. It means that opposite party should have offered the delivery opposition by 25 November 2000. We give some grace period and for the calculation of compensation, damages et cetera et cetera we take the cut-off date as 1 January 2001. Before proceeding further we have 2C some landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble NCDRC.
In R V Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt Ltd., 2019 SCC On Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
“9. We are in agreement with the view of the NCDRC that the rate which has been stipulated by the developer, of compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft. per month does not provide just or reasonable recompense to a flat buyer who has invested money and has not been handed over possession as on the stipulated date of 31 January 2014. To take a simple illustration, a flat buyer with an agreement of a flat measuring
a 1000 sq. ft. would receive, under the agreement, not more than Rs. 3000/- per month. This in a city such as Bangalore does not provide just or adequate compensation. The jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award just compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot in the circumstances be constrained by the terms of the agreement. The agreement in its view is one sided and does not provide sufficient recompense to the flat purchasers.”
The Court observed that there was a delay of two years and hence the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent was reasonable and justified.
In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, there was a delay of almost two years in obtaining an occupancy certificate after the date stipulated in the ABA. As a consequence, there was a failure to provide possession of the flat to the purchaser within a reasonable period. This Court dwelt on the terms of the ABA under which the builder was entitled to charge interest at 18 per cent per annum for the delay in payment of instalments by the purchaser. On the other hand, the failure to provide possession on the part of the developer was subject to a grace period of twelve months followed by a termination notice of ninety days and a further period of ninety days to the developer to effect a refund. Adverting to these clauses, the court noted:
“6.4. A perusal of the apartment buyer's agreement dated 8-5- 2012 reveals stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For instance, Clause 6.4(ii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to charge interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of instalments from the respondent flat purchaser. Clause 6.4(iii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the agreement, if any instalment remains in arrears for more than 30 days. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5 of the agreement, if the appellant builder fails to deliver possession of the apartment within the stipulated period, the respondent flat purchaser has to wait for a period of 12 months after the end of the grace period, before serving a termination notice of 90 days on the appellant builder, and even thereafter, the appellant builder gets 90 days to refund only the actual instalment paid by the respondent flat purchaser, after adjusting the taxes paid, interest and penalty on delayed payments. In case of any delay thereafter, the appellant builder is liable to pay interest @9% p.a. only. 6.5. Another instance is Clause 23.4 of the agreement which entitles the appellant builder to serve a termination notice upon the respondent flat purchaser for breach of any contractual obligation. If the respondent flat purchaser fails to rectify the default within 30 days of the termination notice, then the agreement automatically stands cancelled, and the appellant builder has the right to forfeit the entire amount of earnest money towards liquidated damages. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5(v) of the agreement, if the respondent flat purchaser fails to exercise his right of termination within the time limit provided in Clause 11.5, then he shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement thereafter, and shall be bound by the provisions of the agreement.”
Justice Indu Malhotra speaking for the Court noted:
“6.8. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the agreement dated 8-5-2012 are ex facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the builder.” The Court observed that in these circumstances, the flat purchasers could not be compelled to obtain possession which was offered almost two years after the grace period under the agreement had expired. Hence, the NCDRC was held to have correctly awarded interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.
The decision of this Court in Dhanda Case 2019 SCC On Line SC 689 has been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the developer as elucidating the principle that where a flat buyers agreement stipulates a consequence for delayed possession, exceptional and strong reasons must be established before the forum constituted under the Act of 1986 awards compensation in addition to what has been contractually agreed. In Dhanda’s case, the SCDRC issued a direction for handing over physical possession of the residential unit to the complainant and for execution of a sale deed. In addition, compensation was awarded by way of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from twelve months after the stipulated date under the agreement. In an appeal by the developer, the NCDRC directed that the rate of interest for a house building loan for the corresponding period in a scheduled nationalised bank would be appropriate and if a floating rate of interest was prescribed, the higher rate of interest should be taken for the computation. A sum of Rs. 1 lac per annum from the date for handing over possession to the actual date of possession was regarded as appropriate in the facts of the case. In that case under the terms of the buyer’s agreements, possession was to be delivered within twenty-four months of the execution of the agreement i.e. 10 February 2013 – failing which the developer was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per square foot per month for the delay. The developer contended that construction activities were delayed as a result of an injunction granted by this Court over a period of eight months and consequently sought an extension of the period for handing over possession by one year. Alternatively, the developer offered to refund the money deposited with interest at 9 per cent per annum. Construction of 258 independent floors was completed while about 1,500 units were nearing completion. In two sets of Civil Appeals which came up before this Court earlier, agreed terms were arrived at providing for the award of interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till refund. While considering the order of the NCDRC, this Court observed:
“16. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer's agreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation at more than the agreed rate.”
Now the interest may be 6% to 10% in favour of the allottees if they have not been given possession of the flat/plot within promised or within a reasonable time. The complainant has deposited the entire agreed cost of ₹ 2,997,610/– up to 1st June 2014. Now it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party to deliver the possession within stipulated time but they failed to do so.
In the case of Priyanka PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC). These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr; , 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr. ; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi&Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit &Anr. Vs. ParsvnathDevelopers ;byLtd. &Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.
The Hon’ble NCDRC held that:
“Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained
from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses. The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble State Commission, these appeals preferred before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission .
Hon’ble NCDRC discussed various case laws and after hearing the parties held,
“Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade practice under and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10 ( c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession.
Against this judgment, parties went to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is:-
In Nalin Bhargava vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-
“Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc.
It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition of costs as compensation.
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised objections with regard to imposition of costs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When we say “cost”, we mean costs alone and nothing else.”
In the case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DevasisRudra[Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No(S). 1795 of 2017] judgement delivered on 25.03.2019 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
“Interestingly, where the buyer is in default, the agreement stipulates that interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of default until the date of payment would be charged for a period of two months, failing which the allotment would be cancelled by deducting 5% of the entire value of the property. The agreement was evidently one sided. For a default on the part of the buyer, interest at the rate of 18% was liable to be charged. However, a default on the part of the developer in handing over possession would make him liable to pay interest only at the savings bank rate prescribed by the SBI. There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer that the agreement was one sided.
In the Case ofWg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. Versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd (now Known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.)
and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 6303 of 2019); The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
“24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression “service” in Section 2 (1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfillment of a contractual obligation. To uphold the contention of the developer that the flat buyer is constrained by the terms of the agreed rate irrespective of the nature or extent of delay would result in a miscarriage of justice. Undoubtedly, as this court held in Dhanda, courts ordinarily would hold parties down to a contractual bargain. Equally the court cannot be oblivious to the one-sided nature of ABAs which are drafted by and to protect the interest of the developer. Parliament consciously designed remedies in the CP Act 1986 to protect consumers. Where, as in the present case, there has been a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated debt, we are clearly of the view that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of its power to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is not constrained by the terms of a rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain.”
These builders are just earning money from the consumers to whom they issued allotment letters and got a huge amount. They keep this amount for a long time and earn interest on it. Property dealing is that part of business where they never pay a penny to the consumers on their amounts deposited for a long-term or if they pay, they pay a meagre interest of about 5% or so but they charge 18 to 24% or more if the consumers default in depositing any instalment. It reminds us the story of “The Merchant of Venice” The Merchant of Venice is the story of a Jewish money lender Shylock who demands that an antisemitic Christian offer “a pound of flesh” as collateral against a loan. These acts of builders also remind us the age of Sahukari during ancient India and also during British Raj. Whether these builders have power to frame their own law? They put their terms and conditions in such a way that the sufferer will always be the consumer. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted for the benefits of consumers, so the courts dealing with Consumer Protection Act 1986 should come forward for their rescue. The courts are not governed by the builders but they are governed by the law, Custom and Usages. Now in the background of all the facts and also the facts of the present case, we will also discuss something more.
Now it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also they are liable for unfair trade practice. For calculating the compensation/damages we are inclined that afterthree years the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs from the opposite parties. The cut-off date is 01.01.2001. This is the date from which the amount of compensation/damages and other shall be calculated. Keeping in view all the above mentioned facts, we come to the following conclusions:-
This is a case where the allottee has been given an allotment letter on 25 November 1997 as there is no specific period mentioned for the delivery of the possession, therefore we have taken a reasonable period of three years from the date of allotment letter for handing over the possession and after giving some grace period we came to fix a cut of date as 01.01.2001 for the purpose of providing relief in different heads. If the opposite party provide a flat of the same description, he shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 10% and in case he is unable to provide the flat of the same description, the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 15% on the total deposited amount from 01.01.2001.
After considering all the facts and circumstances we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs:-
- The opposite party is liable to hand over the possession of unit no. C-C233 , Ansals Golf Link Complex “ Greater Noida” within 60 days from the date of judgment of this Complaint case and they will not charge any penny in future except the monthly maintenance charge that too after handing over the possession with completion certificate and they shall also pay interest at a rate of 10% on the deposited amount to the complainants from 01.01.2001 till the date of giving of actual possession of the said unit OR they shall pay ₹ 14,20,159/- with interest at a rate of 15% per annum from 01.01.2001 till the date of compliance of this order and the order shall be complied within 60 days from the date of judgment otherwise they shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 18 % per annum from 01.01.2001 till the date of compliance of this order.
- We are of the view that the complainants are entitled to get monthly damage according to the area. The area of the said unit is 300 square metres and keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Priyanka Mittal (supra), the opposite party is directed to pay ₹ 20,000/- per month from 01.01.2001 till the date of compliance of this order and the order shall be complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal otherwise he shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 10% per annum on this amount .
- The complainants are entitled to get ₹ 150,000/– in view of Nalin Bhargava Case (supra) as cost.
- The complainants are also entitled to get ₹ 7000/– per month from 01.01.2001 towards rent of the flat, till the date of payment.
- The complainants are also entitled to get ₹ 15/- lakhs towards Mental harassment, agony ,sufferings and cost of the suit.
- No amount shall be adjusted by the opposite parties to these amounts whatsoever it may be.
The present complaint is decided accordingly.
ORDER
The opposite party is liable to hand over the possession of unit no. C-C233 , Ansals Golf Link Complex “ Greater Noida”within 60 days from the date of judgment of this Complaint case and they will not charge any penny in future except the monthly maintenance charge that too after handing over the possession with completion certificate and they shall also pay interest at a rate of 10% on the deposited amount to the complainants from 01.01.2001 till the date of giving of actual possession of the said unitORthey shall pay ₹ 14,20,159/- with interest at a rate of 15% per annum from 01.01.2001 till the date of compliance of this order and the order shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of judgment otherwise they shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 18 % per annum from 01.01.2001 till the date of compliance of this order.
The opposite partyis directed to pay ₹ 20,000/- per month from 01.01.2001 till the date of compliance of this order and the order shall be complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal otherwise he shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 10% per annum on this amount .
The opposite party is directed to pay ₹ 150,000/– in view of Nalin Bhargava Case (supra) as one-time compensation to the complainant.
The opposite party is directed to pay ₹ 7000/– per month from 01.01.2001 towards rent of the flat, till the date of payment.
The opposite parties directed to pay ₹ 15/- lakhs towards Mental harassment, agony ,sufferings and cost of the suit.
No amount shall be adjusted by the opposite party to these amounts whatsoever it may be.
All the decreetal amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal otherwise the opposite parties shall pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on all the decreetal amount unless otherwise provided in any relief. If it is not paid within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal, the complainants shall be entitled to present Execution proceedings before this court at the cost of the opposite parties.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
( Sushil Kumar ) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
( Sushil Kumar ) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Dated:15 November 2021
Jafri, PA II
Court 2
