Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/422/2018

Benu Singal Nayyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill, Adv.

10 Jun 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	422 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	19.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.06.2019

 

Benu Singal Nayyar w/o Sh.Raman Nayyar, R/o 2015, Victoria Enclave, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh, currently residing at 182 Rainforest Dr.Brampton ON L6R1A4, through its General Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Vijay Kanta Singal w/o Late Sh.Satish Chander Singal, R/o 2015, Victoria Enclave, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Directors, Sh.Pradeep Bansal and Vishva Prakash.

Also at:-  Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, A-1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Director Sh.Pradeep Bansal and Vishva Prakash.

2. Pradeep Bansal, Director of Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
3. Vishva Prakash, Director of Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties

4. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited having its office at Mistry Bhuvan, Ground Floor, Backbay Reclamation Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

…..Performa party

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

                     Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3.

                     Ms.Parul Chadha, Advocate proxy for Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

 

 

 

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

 

Complaint case No.	:	441 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	27.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.06.2019

 

Rohit Ghanara Son of Col. Harmesh Ghanara, resident of House No.G-101, Army Flats, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

…… Complainant

 

V e r s u s

1. M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., A-2, Dhawandeep Building, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi 110001 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 183-184, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
3. Mr.Deepak Ansal, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., 606, 6^th Floor, IndraPrakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. Housing Development Finance Corporation, SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:-Sh.Naveen Sheokhand, Advocate for the complainant.

                       Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3.

                       Ms.Parul Chadha, Advocate proxy for Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

 

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

 

Complaint case No.	:	442 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	27.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.06.2019

 

Varsha Anand W/o Rohit Ghanara, resident of House No.G-101, Army Flats, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

…… Complainant

 

V e r s u s

1. M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., A-2, Dhawandeep Building, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi 110001 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.
2. M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 183-184, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
3. Mr.Deepak Ansal, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., 606, 6^th Floor, IndraPrakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. Housing Development Finance Corporation, SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:-Sh.Naveen Sheokhand, Advocate for the complainant.

                       Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3.

                       Ms.Parul Chadha, Advocate proxy for Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

 

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

 

Complaint case No.	:	479 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	24.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.06.2019

 

1. Santosh Kumar Rikhi, aged 39 years, son of Sub.Major Lakhbir Chand Rikhi, resident of 1^st Floor, A 63, The Palladians, Sector 47, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Shweta Rikhi, aged 38 years, wife of Santosh Kumar Rikhi, resident of 1^st Floor, A 63, The Palladians Sector 47, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Director.
2. Managing Director, Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., A-2, Dhawandeep Building, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi.
3. Branch Manager, Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite parties

 

Argued by:-     Ms.Navjot Advocate proxy for Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

                       Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                        

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

 

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

               

                By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid four consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants. Arguments in the said complaints were heard in common, on 09.05.2019. In all the complaints, referred to above, issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. As such, during arguments, it was agreed by the contesting parties, that all the four complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2.         To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.422 of 2018 titled as Benu Singal Nayyar Vs. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited and ors. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of entire amount paid i.e. Rs.21,41,130/- (which amount is not disputed by  opposite parties no.1 to 3), towards sale consideration of flat bearing no.1403, 14^th Floor, purchased by her, for total cost of Rs.52,98,760/-  in a project launched by  opposite parties no.1 to 3, under the name and style ‘Orchard County”, Sector 115, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab (in short the unit), as possession thereof was not delivered to her, by the committed date i.e. 12.10.2018 [total 54 months (48 months plus (+) 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. from 13.04.2014] , or even by the date of filing this complaint, for want of construction and development works at the project site. For making payment towards price of the said unit, the complainant had also availed housing loan, from performa opposite party. It is definite case of the complainant that construction at the project site has not even started, what to speak of delay in offering possession of the unit, in question.
3.         By stating that the aforesaid act of opposite parties no.1 to 3 amounted to deficiency in providing service and also adoption of unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of the entire amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc.
4.         Upon notice, reply was filed by  opposite parties no.1 to 3, wherein, allotment of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant; payments made by her as stated in the complaint; and execution of the agreement dated 13.04.2014 were not disputed. It was pleaded that the period of 54 months, for delivering possession of the unit, was tentative. Since the said period was to run from the date of receiving requisite approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities, as such, time was not to be considered as essence of contract. The complainant has concealed material facts. It was averred that the unit, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainant, who is settled abroad and has no intention to shift to India, being investor, would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. It was stated that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 are committed to pay Pre-EMI to the Bank concerned, under subvention scheme. It was averred that opposite parties no.1 to 3 are also committed to pay compensation, for the period of delay in offering possession of the unit, to the complainant, as per terms and conditions of the Agreement, till offer of possession of the unit is made to her. It was pleaded that the complaint filed is beyond limitation. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
5.         Opposite party no.4 in its written version pleaded that since no specific allegations have been levelled against it, as such, it has no concern, with the dispute, qua the complainant and opposite parties no.1 to 3. However, in case, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to refund of amount paid, then first charge be ordered, in favour of opposite party no.4, so that it is able to seek apportionment of its dues, as per terms and conditions governed under the Tripartite Agreement, referred to above.  
6.         In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of opposite parties no.1 to 3.
7.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
8.         We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, very carefully.
9.         The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is a speculator, and that she has purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, she would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act., as alleged by  opposite parties no.1 to 3. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainant is a property dealer and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In her complaint, it has been specifically stated by the complainant that the unit, in question was purchased by her, for personal use. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by  opposite parties no.1 to 3 mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case.

                At the time of arguments, it was vehemently argued by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 that since the complainant is residing abroad and has no intention to shift to India, therefore, the unit, in question, was purchased for future gains, as such, she would not fall within the definition of consumer. It may be stated here that, no law debars NRIs and any other person sitting abroad, with roots in India, to purchase a residential property in India, for his/her personal use. Under similar circumstances, the Hon`ble National Commission, in a case titled as Smt. Reshma Bhagat & Anr. Vs. M/s Supertech Ltd. Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 2012, decided on 04.01.2016, held as under:-

“We are unable to clap any significance with these faint arguments.  It must  be borne in mind that after selling the property at Bangalore, and  in order  to save  the money from riggers  of capital gain tax, under  Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there lies no rub in getting the property, anywhere, in whole of India.  There is not even an iota of evidence that they are going to earn anything from the flat in dispute.  From the evidence, it is apparent that the same had been  purchased  for  the residence of  the complainants.  Moreover, Sh. Tarun S. Bhagat, who is an independent person. It cannot be made a ‘rule of thumb’ that every NRI cannot own a property in India.  NRIs do come to India, every now and then.  Most of the NRIs have to return to their native land. Each NRI wants a house in India.  He is an independent  person  and  can  purchase any  house in India,  in his own name.”

 

                The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by  opposite parties no.1 to 3, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

10.         In connected consumer complaints bearing nos.441 and 442 of 2018, it was argued by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 that since in these two complaints, the complainants are husband and wife respectively, and have purchased two units, as such, it can very well be said that they are not consumers, but are investors. We do not agree with the argument raised. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the complainant(s) stated that two units were purchased by them, so that they are able to cater the needs of growing family. In the rejoinder, it has been clarified by the complainant(s), in these cases, that the unit(s) were purchased by them for their personal use only. It may be stated here that a person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he/she has purchased more than one houses or plots.  Separate units may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members.  A person may buy two or three houses, if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Objection taken in this regard, as such, is rejected.
11.         It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, in the project of opposite parties no.1 to 3, total cost whereof was fixed at Rs.52,98,760/-. Admittedly, promise was made to hand over possession of the built-up unit, within a total period of 54 months (48 months plus 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the agreement dated 13.04.2014. End date to hand over possession stood expired on 12.10.2018, however, nothing was done. Even in the written reply also, no commitment to hand over possession of the unit in near future was made by  opposite parties no.1 to 3. At the time of argument also, we specifically asked to Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3, as to by which date, construction will be completed and possession of the unit, can be handed over to the complainant: he was having no answer and stated that the Company is ready to compensate her, till possession is not delivered. He failed to give status of the project, as on date. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that the onus to prove that construction of the units had been completed, and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, or is about to complete/progressing well is on the builder. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. Thus, in case, all the development and construction activities, are being undertaken, and construction of  units, is near completion at the site, then it was for  opposite parties no.1 to 3, 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, the same, but they failed to do so. Above facts clearly go to show that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were not serious in completing the construction and handing over possession of the built-up unit to the complainant. In view of above, it can safely be said that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of  opposite parties no.1 to 3 and further by making false promise and not delivering possession of the unit, after receipt of huge amount, they also indulged into unfair trade practice.
12.         Under above circumstances, the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, at the whims and fancies of  opposite parties no.1 to 3. There is a material violation on the part of  opposite parties no.1 to 3, in not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant, by the promised dated or even as on today, apart from deficiency in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is settled law that even a single day delay should not be condoned in the matter, unless until there is sufficient ground to do so. Once there is a specific period mentioned in the agreement, for offering and delivering possession of a unit; as such, even a single day beyond that will amount to deficiency in rendering service, unless until the builder is able to produce cogent and convincing evidence, to prove that it faced force majeure circumstances or circumstances beyond its control, resulting into the said delay. As such, the complainant is not bound to accept the offer of possession, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, is at liberty to seek refund of amount paid. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held  as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

The above view taken by the National Commission, has been reiterated by it, in the case titled as Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“This Commission in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. V. Amit Puri (First Appeal No.250 of 2014), decided on 30.03.2015, has held that if the Developer fails to deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat within the stipulated time, the allottee is under no obligation to accept an alternative plot. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that in the event of Developer failing to deliver possession of the property within the stipulated period, for any reason, save and except a force majeure condition, agreed to between the contracting parties, an allottee cannot be compelled to accept an alternate site/plot and he would be within his rights to seek refund of the amount deposited with the Developer against allotment”.

 

                In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that opposite parties no.1 to 3 suffered any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, construction could not be completed.  In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been actually faced by  opposite parties no.1 to 3, it was bound to deliver possession of the unit, by the promised date. As such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract.  Opposite parties no.1 to 3 also cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the words “shall endeavor” was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. The act of non-mentioning of exact date in the allotment letter/Agreement is violation of CHAPTER II Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Transfer and Management of Apartments, Plots and Properties, Condition no. 3(2) (g) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), which says that the project proponent is duty bound to specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the unit is to be handed over and it shall hand over such possession accordingly. Relevant contents of condition no.3(2) (g) of PAPRA are reproduced below:-

“(g) specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly”;

Furthermore, non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement/allotment letter, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the plots/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, also stands rejected

13.         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 huge amount, referred to above, was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by opposite parties no.1 to 3, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were charging heavy rate of interest @20% p.a. compounded quarterly, as per Clause 4.5 of the agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335. In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by her, alongwith interest, from the actual dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by  opposite parties no.1 to 3, in case of delayed payment, as per Clause 4.5 aforesaid), till realization. However, it is made clear that, in case, in any of the consumer complaints, referred to above, the unit, in question, was purchased in resale, interest shall be payable from the date of endorsement/transfer of the said unit, on the entire amount paid to  opposite parties no.1 to 3.   

                In view of above facts of the case,  opposite parties no.1 to 3 are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant(s), for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

14.         Since it is an admitted fact that possession of the unit, in question, had not been offered to the complainant by the time, this complaint was filed or even thereafter, nor the Company is in position to do so, in the near future, on account of the reasons, explained above, as such, there is a continuing cause of action, in her favour to file the consumer complaint, in view of law laid down in the cases titled as Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  wherein it was held that when possession of the residential units is not offered, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the allottee/buyer. Objection raised in this regard, as such, is rejected.
15.         Since, it has already been held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest and compensation, as such, the plea taken by  opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the effect that they are ready to pay penalty amount for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the unit cannot be considered, at this stage. If  opposite parties no.1 to 3 are allowed to invoke the relevant Clause of the Agreement, in the instant case, regarding payment of penalty, that would amount to enriching them, at the cost of the complainant. The defence taken is accordingly rejected. 
16.         No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.
17.         For the reasons recorded above, all the four complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

 

Consumer complaint bearing No.422 of 2018.  Opposite parties no.1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed: -

1. To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainant from her own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any pending, which had been paid by her to opposite party no.4, towards equated monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite parties no.1 to 3, under subvention scheme, as admitted by them in their written statement.  
3. To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.4, released by it, in favour of opposite parties no.1 to 3, in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.4, opposite parties no.1 to 3 shall be bound to pay the equated monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.4, till realization.
4. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
5. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.
6. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii) (if any), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) (if any), thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
7. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

Consumer complaint bearing No.441 of 2018.  Opposite parties no.1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed: -

1. To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainant from his own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any pending, which had been paid by him to opposite party no.4, towards equated monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite parties no.1 to 3, under subvention scheme, as admitted by them in their written statement. 
3. To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.4, released by it, in favour of opposite parties no.1 to 3,  in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.4, opposite parties no.1 to 3 shall be bound to pay the equated monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.4, till realization.
4. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
5. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.
6. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii) (if any), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) (if any), thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
7. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

 

Consumer complaint bearing No.442 of 2018.  Opposite parties no.1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed: -

1. To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainant from her own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any pending, which had been paid by her to opposite party no.4, towards equated monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite parties no.1 to 3, under subvention scheme, as admitted by them in their written statement. 
3. To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.4, released by it, in favour of opposite parties no.1 to 3,  in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.4, opposite parties no.1 to 3 shall be bound to pay the equated monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.4, till realization.
4. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
5. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.
6. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii) (if any), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) (if any), thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.
7. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

 

Consumer complaint bearing No.479 of 2018. The opposite parties jointly and severally are directed: -

1. To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainants from their own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.
2. To refund the amount to the complainants, if any pending, which had been paid by them to the Financial Institution/Bank from which loan was obtained, towards equated monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite parties no.1 to 3, under subvention scheme, as admitted by them in their written statement. 
3. To repay the entire loan amount to Financial Institution/Bank, released by it under subvention scheme, in favour of opposite parties no.1 to 3,  in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to Financial Institution/Bank from which loan was obtained, opposite parties no.1 to 3 shall be bound to pay the equated monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to it, till realization.
4. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
5. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.
6. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii) (if any), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the complainants, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) (if any), thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.

 

18.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy each, be placed in connected files, referred to above.
19.         The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

10.06.2019

 

 

                                              Sd/-                         

 

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

                      Sd/- 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

                      Sd/- 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Rg