Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/186/2019

Mohinder Paul Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rachit Kaushal Adv.

22 Jun 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	186 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	27.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	22.06.2020

 

Mohinder Paul Soni s/o Lt.Sh.Madan Mohan Soni, R/o H.No.583, Green Field, Majitha Road, Amritsar.

Currently residing at H.No.Flat No.588, GBM Apartment, Kurali Road, Kharar.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

 

Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, having its Head Office at 4648/21, Room No.302, 3^rd Floor, Shadumal Building, Daryagang, New Delhi-110002 through its Managing Director/Director (Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, through its Director/Authorized Signatory, SCO No.12A, Ansal City Centre, Sector 115, Kharar-Landran Road, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. (…..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-

                         Sh.Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant.

                         Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite party.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

         

                   The above captioned complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of amount of Rs.25,08,215/-, allegedly paid by him towards purchase of an apartment in a project launched by  the opposite party, under the name and style ‘Orchard County”, Kharar Landran Road, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab (in short the project), total sale price whereof was fixed at Rs.28,83,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that, in the first instance, apartment no.904, 9^th Floor, Tower No.10, measuring 1292 square mts. was allotted by the opposite party, in the said project, however, later on, it showed inability to provide the same. Under those circumstances, he was relocated to apartment No.C-441, vide letter dated 01.02.2014, in “Celebrity Suites”, City Centre, Kharar Landran Road, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Allotment Letter/Buyer’s Agreement dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure C-4) was also executed between the parties, in respect of the relocated apartment No.C-441. However, the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said relocated apartment No.C-441 by 25.02.2017 i.e. within a period of  36 months (30 months plus 6 months grace period) as per Clause 11 of the Allotment Letter dated 25.02.2014 for dearth of construction and development works at the project site. The complainant was shocked to hear from the opposite party that it decided to scrap construction of fourth floor in the proposed complex, wherein, the relocated apartment No.C-441 was allotted to him. As such, he made request to refund the amount, which was not done by the opposite party and was again offered relocation to apartment nos.C-208 and C-209, in the said “Celebrity Suites” with a promise that possession thereof will be offered within a period of three months. Left with no option, he accepted relocation to apartment nos.C-208 and C-209, on the second floor of the said project, as a result whereof, addendum agreement dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure C-6) was executed between the parties. However, possession of the said relocated apartments was also not offered to him by the committed period or thereafter and still he is empty handed. 

                    By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party  amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid alongwith interest, compensation; litigation expenses etc. 

2.           The claim of the complainant has been contested by the opposite party, on numerous grounds, inter alia, that he has concealed material facts from this Commission; that he did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act; that because  the period of 36 months, for delivering possession of the apartment was tentative which was to run only after necessary permissions/sanctions had been obtained from the competent authorities, as such, time was not to be considered as essence of the contract; that the complainant did not hire any service from the opposite party; that this Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the matter needs to be relegated to civil court; that the complainant did not purchase any goods and rather it was an immovable property, and it did not come under the purview of this Commission to adjudicate any dispute arising out of it; and that the complaint filed is beyond limitation
3.           On merits, the fact of allotment of apartment no.904 aforesaid in the first instance; relocation to the apartment No.C-441; execution of Allotment Letter dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure C-4); non offering of possession of apartment No.C-441 by the promised date i.e. 25.02.2017  (within a period of  36 months as per Clause 11 of the Agreement dated 25.02.2014) or even thereafter; again relocation to  apartment nos.C-208 and C-209, aforesaid; execution of addendum agreement dated 19.11.2018 in respect of the said relocated apartments and non offering of possession thereof also, by the date when this complaint has been filed, is not disputed by the opposite party. It has been pleaded that since the units to which the complainant was relocated are commercial units and the same were to be used by him for commercial purposes, as such, this consumer complaint is not maintainable; that vide addendum agreement, it was agreed to between the parties that the Company will pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the deposited amount from 25.02.2017 till offer of possession of the relocated apartments is made to the complainant. It has been stated that construction work at the project site is near completion and possession of the relocated apartments will be delivered very soon. It has been averred that the Company is facing  huge financial losses, as large number of litigations have been filed against it by other allottees. Remaining averments have been denied being wrong.
4.           The parties led evidence in support of their case, by way of affidavits.
5.           We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
6.           From the pleadings of parties and other material available on the record, following points have emerged for consideration in this case: -
   1. Whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer?
   2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not?
   3. Whether time was essence of the contract?
   4. Whether the complaint filed is within limitation?
   5. Whether there was any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party?
   6. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount deposited and if yes, at what rate of interest?

 

7.           First coming to the objection raised to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of  ‘consumer’, it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such the onus shifts to the opposite party to establish that the complainant has purchased the apartment in question to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of apartments/flats’ as was held by the Hon’ble National  Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but since it failed to discharge its onus, hence we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
8.           It has also been pleaded by the opposite party that since the relocated apartments nos.C-208 and C-209 are commercial units, as such, on that count also, the complainant is not a consumer, as he was to use the same for commercial purposes. We do not agree with the plea raised, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

                   Perusal of almost all the documents placed on record relating to relocation aforesaid, reveals that the complainant was, in the first instance, relocated to residential apartment no.C-441 from apartment no.904 and then to residential apartment nos.C-208 and C-209, in the project, referred to above. Infact, the complainant was relocated to the said apartments in the project named “Celebrity Suites” and not to any commercial complex. Our view is fortified from the contents of Allotment Letter dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure C-4) and also Addendum Agreement dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure C-6), wherein, at almost all the places, it has been written that the complainant has been relocated from Service Apartment No.C-441 known as “Celebrity Suites”, Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab to Service Apartment Nos.C-208 and C-209,  second floor, in that very “Celebrity Suites”. Thus, we do not hesitate to say that the complainant was relocated to residential apartments only and not to any commercial units. Such a bald plea taken in the absence of any documentary evidence has no significant value in the eyes of law and is accordingly rejected.  

                   Furthermore, even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted (though not proved) that the said relocated units were commercial ones, even then the complainant cannot be termed as investor because in para no.8  of the reply on merits, it has been clearly stated by the opposite party that it only relocated the complainant to the said units, to compensate him for delay in handing over possession. Thus, on this score also, the opposite party cannot take benefit of its wrong doings, flowing out from its deficiency in service, to defeat the claim of the complainant. Plea taken in this regard, thus, stands rejected.

9.           There is no dispute with regard to the fact that possession of the relocated apartments, referred to above, has not been delivered to the complainant till the date when this complaint has been filed or during pendency thereof. Even in the written reply filed, no firm commitment to hand over possession of the relocated apartments has been made by the opposite party. It has only been casually stated that construction is near completion and that possession of the relocated apartments will be delivered soon to the complainant.

                   At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite party failed to apprise this Commission, as to by which date, construction will be completed and possession of the relocated apartments, can be handed over to the complainant. However, he has fairly admitted that construction of the relocated apartments is not yet complete and not ready for possession. Not even a single reason has been given for not offering possession of the apartments in question to the complainant. He only stated that the Company is ready to pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay, on the deposited amount, till offer of the relocated apartments is made to the complainant. It may be stated here that during pendency of this complaint, this Commission vide order dated 29.08.2019, directed the opposite party through its Counsel, to produce on record the following documents, duly authenticated, to apprise us, as to whether, the Company was competent to launch the project and sell apartments/units therein to the general public including the complainant or not:-

 

1. “Registration Certificate of the project with the competent authority.
2. Copy of requisite Licence issued by the Competent Authority under Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1995.
3. Change of Land Use (CLU) pertaining to the project in question.
4. Letter of Intent (LOI).
5. Copy of approved site plan of the project.
6. Completion Certificate of the project.
7. Latest photographs of the site/unit in dispute.
8. Current list of Managing Director/Director(s) of the Company.
9. Detail of Bank Accounts of the Company.
10. List of properties both moveable and immoveable of the company and its Managing Director/Director(s) which can be attached in execution of the decree. ”

 

However,  it is significant to mention here that even thereafter also during pendency of this complaint, despite the fact that number of opportunities were given to the opposite party to place on record the aforesaid documents, yet, it failed to furnish the same for the reasons best known to it. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that by not placing on record the aforesaid documents, the opposite party has attracted an adverse inference against it that the project in question had been launched in contravention of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 i.e. it has failed to obtain necessary approvals/sanctions for launching the  said project and selling the units therein to the prospective buyers. Our view is further fortified from the joint written reply filed by the opposite party, wherein, in para nos.4, 5 (preliminary objections) and 7 (reply on merits) it has been candidly stated that period of possession was to run from the date when all approvals/sanctions/permissions in respect of the project in question were received, which clearly means that the same had not been obtained before launching the project in question. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice.

10.           It is settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of construction and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/approvals have been obtained in respect thereof, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. It is very strange that in the present case, not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by the opposite party to prove as to at what stage, construction and development work has reached at the project site and that as to whether approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it from the competent Authorities to launch the said project. In case, the development/ construction activities are being undertaken and are about to complete at the project site, then it was for the opposite party, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities, are being undertaken and about to complete at the site or not, but it failed to do so.

                   Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the opposite party suffered any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, construction and development work at the project site could not be completed and possession of relocated apartments was not delivered to the complainant. If the opposite party has indulged into unfair trade practice and was also deficient in providing service by not offering possession of the apartments to similar located allottees, who have also filed complaints against it and number of litigations are pending against it, resulting into alleged financial losses, then it cannot expect to claim any immunity out of the same from this Commission.

11.           From the peculiar circumstances of this case, it has been proved that the opposite party made false representations, which were materially incorrect and were made in such a way that the complainant, to whom it was made, was entitled to rely upon it and he may act in reliance on it. The complainant is thereby involved in a disadvantageous contract with the opposite party and suffered financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Representations/statements made at that time were believed to be true. All the facts established that from the very inception there was intent to induce the complainant to enter into the contracts by way of signing agreement/addendum agreements, referred to above, and also intent to deceive him, which act amounts to grave deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
12.           As far as objection taken by the opposite party to the effect that  time was not the essence of contract, it may be stated here that, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances, having been faced by the opposite party, it was legally bound to deliver possession of the apartment purchased by the complainant by the committed date. The complainant had booked the initial apartment in the year 2013. Thereafter, he was relocated to apartment no.441 in 2014. Thereafter, he was again relocated to apartment nos.C-208 and C-209 in 2018.  More than 6 years have lapsed but still possession of any of the apartments has not been offered to the complainant. Thus, by making the complainant in such a disadvantageous position, now the opposite party cannot be heard to say that time is not the essence of contract. In view of above, plea taken by the opposite party to the effect that time was not essence of the contract or that no definite period was given to offer possession of the apartment(s), being devoid of merit stands rejected.
13.           The opposite party also cannot evade its liability, merely by saying that since the words proposed to be delivered/tentative/likely etc. were mentioned in the Allotment Letter, for delivery of possession of the apartment(s), as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. It may be stated here that non -mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the apartments/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 apartments/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof. It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. Vs. 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, plea of the opposite party in this regard also stands rejected.

14.           As stated above, the complainant had booked the apartment as far as back in the year 2013 and now it is 2020, and still he is empty handed despite the fact that substantial amount of Rs.24,97,432/- (as per receipts/cheques dated 19.12.2013 to 11.03.2014 (Annexure C-5 colly.)  against total sale consideration of Rs.28,83,000/- stood paid to the opposite party. On the other hand, he was relocated twice, to the apartments, referred to above, but possession thereof has not been offered. Still, the opposite party is not sure, as to by which date, possession of the relocated apartments can be delivered to the complainant. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period on the bald assurances given by the opposite party that it is ready to pay compensation for the period of delay in delivering possession of the relocated apartments.

                   It is well settled law that non-delivery of possession of apartments/units in a developed project by the promised date or within a reasonable period, is a material violation on the part of a builder and in those circumstances, the allottee is well within his/her right to seek refund of the amount paid. Our view is supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also  in Fortune Infrastructure Versus Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442. In the present case also, since there has been an inordinate delay in the matter, which is  still continuing one, as the opposite party is not sure as to by which date/year possession of the relocated apartments could be delivered to the complainant, as such, we are of the considered opinion that if we order refund of the amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest, that will meet the ends of justice. 

15.           Now, we will deal with the question, as to what rate of interest should be awarded to the complainant, while ordering refund of amount paid. It may be stated here that a similar question, as to what rate of interest should be granted while ordering refund of the deposited amount, in case, the builder fails to deliver possession of residential apartments/units/plots, by the stipulated date or within a reasonable period, fell for determination before the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in H.U.D.A. Vs. Neelam Sharma, Civil Appeal no.3417 of 2003 decided on 18.08.2004. In the said case, the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that in case of refund of amount, the Interest Act would apply and 12% interest is to be granted from the date of amounts deposited till repayment. Recently also, under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble National Commission in Alok Kumar Vs. M/s. Golden Peacock Residency Private Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 1315 of 2018, decided on 06 Sep 2019 while ordering refund of the amount paid, awarded interest @12% p.a.  

                   Not only as above, even under Section 12 of the PAPR Act, read with Rule 17 of the Rules thereunder,  it has been specifically mentioned that if the amount is to be refunded, it is to be refunded alongwith interest @12% p.a. It is therefore held that if interest @12% p.a. is awarded on the amount to be refunded to the complainant i.e. on Rs.24,97,432/-, that will meet the ends of justice.

16.           Since, it is an admitted fact that possession of the relocated apartments has not been offered to the complainant by the date this complaint has been filed or even thereafter, nor the Company is in position to do so, as explained above, as such, there is a continuing cause of action in his favour to file this complaint in view of law laid down in 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. Furthermore, since the Company is still utilizing the amount paid by the complainant and has not refunded the same, as such, in that event also, there is a continuing cause of action in his favour, in view of observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in KNK Promoters & Developers Versus S.N. Padmini, Revision Petition No. 340 of 2011, decided on 31 Aug 2016 in which it was held that the builder cannot withhold the amount deposited by the allottee and if it is so, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee, to file a complaint seeking refund of the said amount.

                   In the instant case, delay if any, in offering possession of the apartment(s) was on the part of the opposite party and it cannot take benefit out of that by saying that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. and allied cases, in Civil Appeal No. 3883/2007, decided on 07.04.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the provisions concerning the limitation issue in the Act, 1986 could not be strictly construed to the disadvantage of a consumer in cases, where the supplier of goods or services itself was instrumental in causing delay.

17.           Another objection was raised by the opposite party, that since the dispute is related to construction of an apartment i.e. immovable property, as such, this complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora, under the Act and that only the Civil Court has power to adjudicate the same. It may be stated here that the complainant hired the services of the opposite party, for purchasing the apartment on making payment of sale consideration, referred to above. The opposite party was to deliver possession of the apartment, in a time bound manner, referred to above, with complete basic amenities. By not completing the development and construction within the stipulated period, the opposite party, violated the terms and conditions of the Allotment Letter, which act amounts to deficiency in rendering service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC) it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, objection raised by the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18.           Now coming to the plea taken by the opposite party to the effect that since the complainant has not purchased any goods from the Company and it was an apartment which is an immovable property, as such, in that event also this complaint is not maintainable, it may be stated here that a similar question fell for determination before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, Civil Appeal No.6237 of 1990, decided on 05.11.1993. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while rejecting  such a similar plea raised by the developer/builder, dismissed its appeal, while holding as under:-

“….It was therefore urged that the applicability of the Act having been confined to moveable goods only a complaint filed for any defect in relation to immovable goods such as a house or building or allotment of site could not have been entertained by the Commission. The submission does not appear to be well founded. The respondents were aggrieved either by delay in delivery of possession of house or use of sub-standard material etc. and therefore they claimed deficiency in service rendered by the appellants. Whether they were justified in their complaint and if such act or omission could be held to be denial of service in the Act shall be examined presently but the jurisdiction of the Commission could not be ousted because even though it was service it related to immovable property”.

xxxx

6. What remains to be examined is if housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2 of the Act as it stood prior to inclusion of the expression 'housing construction' in the definition of "service" by Ordinance No. 24 of 1993. As pointed out earlier the entire purpose of widening the definition is to include in it not only day to day buying and selling activity undertaken by a common man but even such activities which are otherwise not commercial in nature yet they partake of a character in which some benefit is conferred on the consumer. Construction of a house or flat is for the benefit of person for whom it is constructed. He may do it himself or hire services of a builder or contractor. The latter being for consideration is service as defined in the Act. Similarly when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act. Any defect in construction activity would be denial of comfort and service to a consumer. When possession of property is not delivered within stipulated period the delay so caused is denial of service. Such disputes or claims are not in respect of immoveable property as argued but deficiency in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade. Such deficiencies or omissions are defined in sub-clause (ii) of clause (r) of Section 2 as unfair trade practice. If a builder of a house uses substandard material in construction of a building or makes false or misleading representation about the condition of the house then it is denial of the facility or benefit of which a consumer is entitled to claim value under the Act. When the contractor or builder undertakes to erect a house or flat then it is inherent in it that he shall perform his obligation as agreed to. A flat with a leaking roof, or cracking wall or substandard floor is denial of service. Similarly when a statutory authority undertakes to develop land and frame housing scheme, it, while performing statutory duty renders service to the society in general and individual in particular. The entire approach of the learned counsel for the development authority in emphasising that power exercised under a statute could not be stretched to mean service proceeded on misconception. It is incorrect understanding of the statutory functions under a social legislation. A development authority while developing the land or framing a scheme for housing discharges statutory duty the purpose and objective of which is service to the citizens. As pointed out earlier the entire purpose of widening the definitions is to include in it not only day to day buying of goods by a common man but even such activities which are otherwise not commercial but professional or service-oriented in nature. The provisions in the Acts, namely, Lucknow Development Act, Delhi Development Act or Bangalore Development Act clearly provide for preparing plan, development of land, and framing of scheme etc. Therefore if such authority undertakes to construct building or allot houses or building sites to citizens of the State either as amenity or as benefit then it amounts to rendering of service and will be covered in the expression 'service made available to potential users'. A person who applies for allotment of a building site or for a flat constructed by the development authority or enters into an agreement with a builder or a contractor is a potential user and nature of transaction is covered in the expression 'service of any description'. It further indicates that the definition is not exhaustive. The inclusive clause succeeded in widening its scope but not exhausting the services which could be covered in earlier part. So any service except when it is free of charge or under a constraint of personal service is included in it. Since housing activity is a service it was covered in the clause as it stood before 1993”.

The principle of law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority`s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. As such, plea taken by the opposite party in this regard, stands rejected.

19.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite party is directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.24,97,432/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit onwards, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount of Rs. 24,97,432/- shall carry 3% penal interest i.e. total 15% p.a. (12% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.), from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
2. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

20.           However, it is made clear that if the complainant has availed loan facility from any Bank/Financial Institution, for making payment towards price of the said apartment(s), it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant.
21.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

22.06.2020

Sd/-

 

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

          [PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

         

 

Sd/-

 

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

 Rg