DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
========
Consumer Complaint No | : | 348 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.06.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 05.12.2013 |
1. Lt. Col. Inderjit Singh Cheema (Retd.) S/o Sh.Sampuran Singh.
2. Mrs.Davinder Cheema w/o Lt. Col. Inderjit Singh Cheema (Retd.), both residents of H.No.2270-B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.
…..Complainants
V E R S U S
1. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002, through its Managing Director.
2. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office at SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Sr.General Manager.
……Opposite Parties
QUORUM: P.L.AHUJA PRESIDENT
RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER
MRS.SURJEET KAUR MEMBER
For Complainants: Sh.R.P.Singh, Advocate.
For OPs: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT
1. Lt.Col.Inderjit Singh Cheema & Anr., complainants have filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that they agreed to purchase flat bearing No.27 GF at Palm Grove comprising of 3 BHK measuring super area of about 1525 Sq.Ft. at a total price of Rs.33,75,000/- from the OPs in the project known as Palm Grove, Sector 115, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali with an intention to own a residential flat for their own residential purposes near the vicinity of city beautiful Chandigarh. An allotment letter dated 24.6.2009 Annexure C-2 was signed between the parties mentioning certain terms and conditions, which were in a printed format already settled by the OPs, wherein, no modifications were allowed by the OPs. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the OPs as the booking amount on 10.6.2009 and, thereafter, also paid another amount of Rs.2,37,500/- on 2.7.2009 and the copies of the receipts are at Annexure C-1. As per para No.10 of the allotment letter, possession of the said flat was to be given within a period of 24 months i.e. by 24.6.2011 from the date of allotment letter. On 27.10.2009, complainants paid another sum of Rs.8,68,750/- vide receipt, copy of which is Annexure C-3. It has been further contended that for making further payments, the complainants approached the HDFC Ltd., which is the financial partner of OPs, for getting housing loan on the said flat. The complainants took a loan of Rs.20 lacs from HDFC, out of which, HDFC disbursed the first installment of Rs.3,12,500/- on 6.11.2009, second installment of Rs.8,43,750/- on 6.7.2010 and the last installment of Rs.8,43,750/- on 1.2.2013 to the OPs. In this way, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.38,14,874/- against the amount of Rs.37,88,062/- demanded by the OPs vide their letter dated 15.9.2012. It has been further alleged that the OPs failed to apprise the complainants about the progress of the project during its construction and even after the expiry of the construction period of two years mentioned in the allotment letter. Aggrieved against the callous response and attitude of the OPs, the complainants sent registered letter dated 25.6.2012 Annexure C-4 seeking the progress of the project and intimation regarding the date of handing over the possession of their flat. Then flabbergasted by complainant’s letter dated 25.6.2012 (C-4), OP No.2 offered the possession of the residential unit No.27 GF vide their letter dated 12.7.2012 Annexure C-5, which in fact is a counterblast of the earlier letter dated 25.6.2012. On 19.7.2012 the complainants inspected the unit No.27 GF to assess the suitability, livability and feasibility of physical possession and they found that the unit was far from habitation. The complainants sent a detailed, exhaustive and a speaking letter dated 26.7.2012 Annexure C-6 through registered post to the OPs pointing out the numerous defects/deficiencies/discrepancies and observations, which the OPs did not even bother to reply, which shows their admission with regards to the defects. Thereafter, the complainants sent various registered letters dated 25.8.2012, 29.8.2012 and 13.9.2012, which are collectively annexed as Annexure C-7. Then, the OPs wrote another letter dated 15.9.2012 Annexure C-8 to the complainants along with statement of account asking them to take possession of unit No.27 GF but they were absolutely quiet whether the defects/deficiencies have been removed or not. However, the unit was still not ready for occupation. It has been further contended that the complainants were shocked to see the statement of account annexed with their offer of possession letter dated 15.9.2012, whereby, the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.13,80,867/- (including balance payment + Rs.20,000/- as internal development charges + Rs.31,304/- as service tax + Rs.2,92,131/- as price for increased area and Rs.9,027/- as service tax + Rs.15,304/- as interest on delayed payment + Rs.25,000/- as IFMSD). It has been contended that the OPs have charged Rs.20,000/- from the complainants on account of IDC (Internal Development Charges), whereas, it is very much part and parcel of the project. Hence, laying of roads and sewerage etc as claimed by the OPs is unjustified. OPs at their own increased the super area of the flat by another 132 sq. ft., which was never disclosed to the complainants and the consent of the complainants was not obtained and they were further burdened with another sum of Rs.2,92,131/- + service tax of Rs.9027/-, whereas, in fact the super area had not been enhanced even upto an inch. OPs also charged an amount of Rs.15,304/- as interest on delayed payment, whereas, the complainants have made all the payments well within time. OPs had forced the complainants to deposit Rs.25,000/- interest free security deposit and the maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/- with Star Facilities Management Limited (SFML), Sector 9-C, Chandigarh & OrchidCounty, Sector 115, Mohali before the complainants could get the possession of the unit. The complainants being a weak party were left with no choice and had to deposit under protest Rs.47,677/- with SFML in order to take possession of the unit. The complainants were given the possession of the unit only on 1.3.2013. The complainants have contended that they are entitled to Rs.47,677/- along with interest @18%. In this context, the complainants have also annexed Annexure C-9 to C-11. It has been further alleged that the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.60,000/- for open car parking, which was shown in the brochure to be provided in front of the flats across the road, whereas, the OPs have played a fraud with the complainants by allotting the open car parking just along the entry road, which is far away from the complainants unit. It has been contended that the OPs have in fact erected a high wall at the place of original site of car parking across the road. The complainants have produced a copy of the colored brochure shown to them at the time of booking of flat as Annexure C-12. Thereafter, the complainants wrote letters dated 20.9.2012 asking the OPs to clarify the issues regarding details of increased area, item wise break of IDC charges etc. with further reminders dated 1.11.2012, 20.11.2012, 4.12.2012 and 29.12.2012, which all went upon deaf ears as the OPs failed to give reply to any of the letters. Thereafter, the complainants served a legal notice dated 20.12.2012 collectively annexed with the other letters Annexure C-14 to the OPs but to no effect. On 24.11.2012 complainants visited the site to find out if the unit was ready for occupation. They were accompanied by their Assistant Mr.Jagtar Singh. Mr.Jagtar Singh was asked to go on the first floor to see the flat No.27 FF because it was pertaining to one of their relatives and when Mr.Jagtar Singh entered the escalator to go to first floor which was showing light to indicate that it was in working order, he got struck in the lift itself and he was retrieved and saved after considerable efforts. This incident happened in the presence of Mr.Tarlok Singh, retired Principal ad Mr.R.S.Tiwana, a retired Officer of Sugarfed Punjab, who helped to save Mr.Jagtar Singh. The complainants wrote a registered letter dated 4.12.2012 intimating the state of the so called readiness and this particular episode. The affidavits of Mr.Jagtar Singh, Mr.Tarlok Singh and Mr.R.S.Tiwana are collectively annexed as Annexure C-16. It has been further contended that the complainants had booked their flat under the subvention scheme wherein the OPs were to pay the Pre-EMIs to the HDFC till the date of actual possession was given. The OPs had been paying the Pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd upto July, 2012 and, thereafter, they suddenly stopped paying the same to HDFC and the complainants had to pay an amount of Rs.81,503/- as Pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. for the period from August, 2012 to February, 2012 (2013?). Copies of the receipt/passbook entry are collective annexed as Annexure 17. The complainants have alleged that they were given the possession of the unit after a delay of 20 months, therefore, they are entitled to be compensated @Rs.15,000/- per month and the OPs are liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- + interest @18%. It has been also alleged that the complainants are entitled for the interest @18% p.a. as held in Shri J.L.Sethi Vs. Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society Annexure C-18 because the OPs also charge interest @18% p.a. in case of default in making payment on the part of allottee. The complainants have sought a direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.8,37,150/-, which includes Rs.11,508/- i.e. the extra amount paid by the complainants, Rs.60,000/- towards car parking, Rs.20,000/- as IDC, Rs.2,92,131/- for increased area, Rs.9027/- as service tax on increased area, Rs.15,304/- interest on delayed payment, Rs.3 lacs as rental value and Rs.81,503/- as payment towards Pre-EMI to HDFC along with interest @18%. It has also been prayed that the OPs be directed to provide car parking in front of the unit 27 GF as shown and promised in their brochure, apart from making payment of compensation of Rs.5 lacs and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
2. In their written version, the OPs have pleaded that the complainants are not “consumers” under the definition of the Act because the investment in the property of the OPs by the complainants was purely for commercial purposes and speculative investments. Even after the intimation of delivery of possession by the OPs on 12.7.2012, the complainants have not started habituating in the said residential unit in question. It has been further averred that the complaint has been filed by two individuals but no application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act has been filed. It has been further stated that the complainants had accepted the terms and conditions andcovenants of the allotment letter Annexure C-2 without any demur or protest in the year 2009 and they cannot be allowed to rack up any controversy outside the ambit of the said allotment letter in the year 2012 i.e. after a period of 4 years. It has been stated that the brochure and layout plans as offered to the complainants were indicative and not final in any manner so as to thrust an obligation upon the OPs not to vary the same at a later stage in time. It has been further stated that as per term and condition No.10, the possession of the said premises was likely to be delivered by the company to the apartment allottee within a period of 24 months from the date of agreement subject to force majeure circumstances. It has been averred that the offer of possession was made by the OPs to the complainants on 12.7.2012 i.e. within a period of 36 months timeline, which is a very reasonable period of time. It has been further stated that the complainants are bound to fulfill their financial obligations to HDFC Bank in terms of the loan agreement. It has been denied that the offer of possession made vide letter dated 12.7.2012 was a counter-blast to the earlier letter dated 25.6.2012 issued by the complainants. Rather the completion certificate Annexure R-1 shows that the units stood completed and ready for habitation. It has been stated that the complainants visited the project on 19.7.2012 and pointed out certain shortcomings, which were duly noted down by the representative of OPs and he assured the complainants that the OPs would require a time period of about a fortnight to finally finish the said apartment in all respects. It has been stated that the complainants post their solitary visit on 19.7.2012, failed to turn up again after the passage of the fortnight and, thereafter, indulged in coffee table correspondence. It has been averred that the OPs were not bound to answer/respond to each and every letter issued by the complainants, especially when the complainants were asked to give the OPs a fortnight to finish off the said apartment. It has been contended that when the complainants failed to come forward to fulfill their financial and other obligations before taking actual possession thereof, the OPs were constrained to issue a letter dated 15.9.2012 seeking the balance payment of the unit in terms of the allotment letter and its conditions. It has been averred that all the amounts, which were chargeable as per the terms and conditions, were charged. The increase in area and the subsequent increase in the amount finally payable was a decision entirely within the domain of the builder/developer and the builder/developer had raised a demand on that account, as per copy of MB Sheet Annexure R-2. It has been stated that demand of interest was payable as per the account statement Annexure R-3. It has been averred that the complainants had to come forward and receive the possession of the apartment after 12.7.2012 but they failed to do so. It has been denied that the OPs had offered open car parking in front of the dwelling unit of the complainants. It has been averred that the brochure was an offer document and was completely indicative in nature and the builder/developer had every right to designate an area for car parking, as per the final layout plan. The receipt of legal notice from the complainants has been admitted. It has been further stated that the obligation of the OPs qua payment of Pre-EMI was only till the date of offer of possession and no point in time thereinafter.
3. In their rejoinder, the complainants have reiterated the allegations in the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5. We have gone through the entire evidence and the written arguments filed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. As far as the objection of the OPs that the complainants are not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the property was purchased by the complainants for commercial purposes and speculative investment is concerned, it is significant to note that the complainants have specifically mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint that they with an intention to own a residential flat for their own residential purposes near the vicinity of city beautiful Chandigarh agreed to purchase flat in question. The complainants are not property dealers and the OPs have failed to produce any such evidence on record that they purchased the apartment in question with a view to sell the same. Otherwise also, the complainants have specifically pleaded in their rejoinder that their intent was and still is to use 27-GF unit for residential purposes. However, the unit needs wood work and safety measures before moving into. The door and window panes have no iron grills and only a thin glass, which can be easily broken even with a fist. Considering the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainants are proved to be “consumers” as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and they purchased the residential flat bearing No.27 GF from the OPs for their own residential purposes.
7. In regard to the objection that the complaint has been filed by two individuals without any application for permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, it is important to note that both the complainants are husband and wife and in pursuance of their application dated 10.6.2009 the allotment letter Annexure C-2 was issued in their joint names by the OPs. Hence, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the above technical ground pointed out by the OPs.
8. Adverting to the question of delay in handing over of the possession of unit No.27 GF at Palm Grove to the complainants, a perusal of the term No.10 of the allotment letter Annexure C-2 shows that it was stipulated that the possession of the said premises was likely to be delivered by the company to the apartment allottee within a period of 24 months from the date of the agreement subject to force majeure circumstances and on receipt of all payments punctually. The copies of receipts at Annexure C-1, C-3 and as per details of payment made by HDFC to the OPs in para No.5 of the complaint, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.38,14,874/- out of the total price demanded by the OPs vide their letter dated 15.9.2012 i.e. Rs.37,88,062/- which includes (Rs.33,75,000/- as basic price + Rs.31,904/- as service tax + Rs.60,000/- as car parking charges + Rs.20,000/- as internal development charges + Rs.2,92,131/- as price for increased area + Rs.9027/- as service tax on increased area). However, the OPs failed to intimate the complainants about the progress of the project during its construction and even after the expiry of the construction period of two years mentioned in the allotment letter. Pertinently the complainants sent a registered letter dated 25.6.2012 – Annexure C-4 to the OPs and, thereafter, the OPs sent a letter dated 12.7.2012 – Annexure C-5 offering the possession of the residential unit No.27-GF to the complainants. However, when on 19.7.2012 the complainants inspected the unit No.27-GF to assess the suitability, livability and feasibility of physical possession, they found that the unit was far from habitation. The copy of letter dated 26.7.2012 Annexure C-6 clearly shows that the complainants enlisted the defects/observations in the front lawn, living/dining room, kitchen, bed rooms, toilets/bathrooms, back court yard, lift, stair cases, car parking, general area and general points. The OPs were required to rectify and remove all these defects/observations before offering fresh possession. It is the admitted case of the OPs in their written reply that the shortcomings were duly noted down by their representative and the complainants were assured that OPs required a time period of about fortnight to finally finish the said apartment in all respects. This admission on the part of OPs itself establishes that there were shortcomings and defects in the apartment and the OPs wanted to hand over not the actual physical possession of unit complete in all respects but only paper possession to them. Though the OPs have contended in their written reply that the unit stood completed and ready for habitation as per completion certificate Annexure R-1, yet a bare perusal of the letter Annexure R-1 reveals that it is only a partial completion certificate of the project in favour of the OPs. It is quite clear that the OPs did not offer the legal physical possession of the apartment after receipt of the completion certificate and occupation certificate within a period of two years from the date of allotment of the residential apartment. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Bubbly Singh & Anr. Vs. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Complaint Case No.08 of 2013, decided on 01.05.2013, held that OPs were not only deficient in rendering service but also indulged in unfair trade practice. In the instant case, we may also mention that the complainants sent a number of letters to the OPs in respect of the progress of the project and defects/deficiencies in the construction including a legal notice but the OPs did not give reply to even a single letter of the complainants. The contention of the OPs that the offer of possession was made by them to the complainants on 12.7.2012 hence, it was made within a period of 36 months time line, which is a very reasonable period of time, cannot be accepted. It is also important to note that in their earlier letter dated 12.7.2012 Annexure C-5, the OPs offered the physical possession of the residential unit of the complainants but when the complainants pointed out the defects/deficiencies they sent another letter on 15.9.2012 Annexure C-8 informing the complainants that their dream residential unit was ready for possession, which clearly goes to show that it was not ready for possession on 12.7.2012. It is also significant to note that the complainants were not informed that the OPs had removed all the shortcomings and defects pointed out by them and their flat was ready for possession. It is rather strange that the OPs have pleaded in their written reply that they are not bound to answer/respond to each and every letter issued by the complainants. We feel that the written reply of the OPs itself proves deficiency in service on their part. They being service providers have made fun of the complainants by stating that their numerous letters were coffee table correspondence. The OPs have not indicated any force majeure circumstances resulting into delay in handing over of the possession to the complainants. Consequently, we are of the view that the possession of the unit was handed over to the complainants only on 1.3.2013, though it should have been handed over within a period of two years of the allotment letter dated 24.6.2009. The circumstances point out towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
9. It has been contended on behalf of OPs that the terms of the allotment letter are sacrosanct and as held in Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Indu Dhir, Revision Petition No.2023 of 2013 decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 9.10.2013 the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. However, we find that it is quite evident from the facts narrated above that the OPs did not bother even to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter issued by them.
10. The complainants have challenged the account statement annexed with the offer of possession letter dated 15.9.2012 Annexure C-8, whereby, the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.13,80,867/-. According to the complainants, the OPs have charged Rs.20,000/- from them on account of internal development charges, which is very much part and parcel of the project. It has been contended that laying of roads and sewerage etc. as claimed by the OPs is unjustified as the roads and sewerage etc. is a part of overall project. However, a perusal of the Schedule-1 of the allotment letter Annexure C-2 itself shows the complainants were liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards IDC. This schedule is signed by the complainants and we feel that at this juncture the complainants cannot refuse to make payment of the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards internal development charges.
11. The next contention of the complainants is that the OPs at their own increased the super area of the flat by another 132 Sq. Ft. and they have burdened the complainants with another sum of Rs.2,92,131/- + service tax of Rs.9027/-. It is worth noting that the complainants were neither informed nor their consent was taken for the said increase of the unit area. As per allotment letter dated 24.6.2009 Annexure C-2 the super built area was of the apartment of the complainants was 1525 sq. ft. Since no consent of the complainants was taken before constructing the increased area, we feel that the demand of Rs.2,92,131/- + service tax of Rs.9027/- is unjustified. The plea of the OPs that the increase in the area and the subsequent increase in the amount finally payable is the decision entirely within the domain of the builder/developer shows the autocratic attitude on the part of OPs. So, we are of the view that the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,92,131/- + Rs.9027/- service tax = Rs.3,01,158/- to the complainants in respect of the increased area.
12. The complainants have further pleaded that the OPs charged an amount of Rs.15,304/- as interest on delayed payment, whereas, they made all the payments well within time. In this context, the OPs have produced statement of account Annexure R-3. The details mentioned in that statement indicate as to in respect of which installment there was delay in making the payment. The interest on the delayed payments has been mentioned in the said statement and the complainants have not filed any such document, which could show that the dates of receipt mentioned in the account statement Annexure R-3 are incorrect. Hence, we do not feel that the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.15,304/-.
13. The next contention of the complainants is that OPs forced them to deposit Rs.25,000/- as interest free security deposit and the maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/- with Star Facilities Management Limited before they could get the possession of their unit. According to the complainants, they were given the possession of unit only on 1.3.2013, therefore, they are entitled to get back the said amount with interest. The OPs have pleaded that since the offer of possession was given by them on 12.7.2012 and the complainants failed to take possession, therefore, they were liable to pay the charges demanded by them. However, as we have already observed that the offer of possession made by the complainants vide letter dated 12.7.2012 was only paper possession and not the actual physical possession and the OPs did not confirm that they had removed the deficiencies and defects of the units. So, when the complainants were given the possession of their flat on 1.3.2013, the OPs were not justified in seeking a deposit of Rs.25,000/- towards security and the maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/- with Star Facilities Management Limited. The complainants had not utilized the services of Star Facilities Management Limited. Consequently, we feel that when the physical possession of the flat was taken by the complainants only on 1.3.2013, the OPs were not justified in demanding an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/-. The OPs are bound to refund the same to the complainants with interest.
14. The next contention of the complainants is in respect of the amount of Rs.60,000/- for open car parking, which was shown in the brochure to be provided in front of the flat across the road. According to the complainants, they have not been provided the car parking at the place shown in the brochure Annexure C-12. In fact, the OPs have erected a high wall at the place of original site of car parking and they have been provided a car parking far away from their unit. It has been contended that the OPs have played a fraud upon them. They have also cited Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2010 AIR(SC) 3607 Annexure C-13 and have contended that builder cannot charge separately for the car parking from the allottee. They have contended that they are entitled to get back the amount of Rs.60,000/- towards car parking.
15. The OPs in their written reply have pleaded that the brochure was an offer document and was completely indicative in nature and the builder/developer has every right to designate an area for car parking as per final layout plan. It has also been pleaded that the pictorial representation made by the OPs in the brochure is of another wing of the same project, which cannot be made a ground to seek a relief.
16. After scrutinizing the material on record, we feel that once the car parking was shown in front of the flats across the road in the brochure, the complainants and other buyers must have been impressed with the contents of the brochure and now the OPs cannot wriggle out from their own document saying that the brochure was completely indicative in nature and the pictorial representation made by them in the brochure is of another wing of the same project. The act of the OPs in erecting a high wall at the original site of car parking across the road amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part, for which, the complainants are entitled to get compensation. However, we do not feel that the complainants are entitled to the refund of Rs.60,000/- because even in the schedule attached with their allotment letter, it is clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.60,000/- was payable towards car parking. The ruling Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra) cited by the complainants relates to Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of Promotion Construction Sale, Management & Transfer) Act, 1963 and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The parties of the present case are bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get back the amount of Rs.60,000/- of the car parking charges.
17. The complainants have further challenged the act of the OPs in stopping the payment of the Pre-EMI to HDFC, for which, the complainants had to pay an amount of Rs.81,503/- to the HDFC Limited. We feel that since the possession of the flat was actually handed over to the complainants on 1.3.2013, the payment of Rs.81,503/- as Pre-EMI was to be made to HDFC for the period from August, 2012 to February, 2013 by the OPs. Hence, the complainants are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.81,503/- along with interest.
18. The complainants have also prayed for compensation @Rs.15,000/- per month in respect of delay of 20 months in handing over of the possession with interest @18% p.a. However, we feel that the complainants are entitled to get compensation for mental agony and physical harassment on account of delay on the part of OPs in handing over of the possession but they are not entitled to get separate compensation on this count @Rs.15,000/- per month because they have not started residing in the flat No.27 GF even till now.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-
i) To refund an amount of Rs.2,92,131/- for increased area + Rs.9027/- as service tax on increased area + Rs.81,503/- paid as Pre-EMI to HDFC + Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/- (Total Rs.4,30,338/-) along with interest @12% from the date of the respective deposits by the complainants till realization.
ii) To pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the complainants for delay in handing over of possession of the flat and changing the place of parking and resultant mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
iii) To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs to the complainants.
20. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.4,30,338/- @18% p.a. from the date of the respective deposits by the complainants till realization. The OPs shall also pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount of compensation of Rs.2 lacs, in case of default of payment within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.
21. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
