Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/109/2015

Rajni Duggal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

H.S.Saini, Adv.

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	109 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	29.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.08.2015

 

1. Rajni Duggal wife of Sh. A.P. Duggal.
2. Vikrant Duggal son of Sh. A.P. Duggal.

Allottee of Unit No.SH-23UGF, City Centre Mohali, both residents of House No.66, Phase VI, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., H.O.-B-2, Dhawandeep Building, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
2. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Head.

              .... Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:Sh. H.S. Saini, Advocate for the complainants.

                Ms.Kashika, Advocate proxy for Sh.Gaurav Chopra,                        Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.  

               

                The facts, in brief, are that, in the year 2009, the Opposite Parties, floated a scheme, for the allotment of commercial space, in their upcoming project, under the name and style of “City Centre”, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab. It was stated that, in order of set up the personal consultation/professional office, the complainants applied to the Opposite Parties, for a commercial space, vide application dated 28.09.2009. Alongwith the said application, the complainants also deposited Rs.1,97,380/-, as booking amount. As such, the complainants were allotted Unit No.SH-23UGF, measuring 51.70 square meter (556.35 square feet), in the said Project. The total cost of the said unit was to the tune of Rs.19,75,043/-, including all charges. It was further stated that the complainants opted for the construction linked instalment plan.  

2.          It was further stated that according to Clause 11 of the allotment letter dated 05.11.2009 Annexure C-1, the Opposite Parties were to hand over physical possession of the said unit, in favour of the complainants, within three years, from the date of booking/allotment. Thus, the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant, latest by 04.11.2012.
3.         It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainants made timely payment of instalments, in respect of the said unit, as and when demanded by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that, as such, the total amount of Rs.17,17,317/-, had been paid by the complainants, to the Opposite Parties, in respect of part price of the said unit.  It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date i.e. 04.11.2012.
4.         It was further stated that the complainants visited the site, a number of times, but were surprised to see that there was neither any construction nor development at the site. It was further stated that, later on, the complainants came to know that the entire lay-out plan of the said project, had been changed. It was further stated that the complainants contacted the Opposite Parties, to apprise them, with regard to the details and status of the unit, allotted in their favour, but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. It was further stated that even letter dated 05.05.2014 Annexure C-4, was also sent to the Opposite Parties, by the complainants, in the matter, but no reply was received from them. It was further stated that, on the other hand, the Opposite Parties, made demand of Rs.1,02,132.90Ps., to be made by 27.03.2015.
5.         It was further stated that when possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered to the complainants, till March 2015, they served legal notice dated 25.03.2015, Annexure C-5, upon them. It was further stated that, in response to the legal notice dated 25.03.2015, the Opposite Parties, withdrew the demand made by them vide letter dated 27.03.2015 Annexure C-6, on the ground, that the same had been sent inadvertently, on account of automatically generated system.
6.         It was further stated that not only this, the area of the unit, in question, had also been decreased by the Opposite Parties, from 556.35 square feet to 300 square feet, but, on the other hand, they continued charging for 556.35 square feet. It was further stated that no prior consent was taken from the complainants, in relation to decrease in the area of the unit, in question. It was further stated that not only this, a power room had been constructed, at the back of the unit, in question. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Parties had changed the entire layout plan of the said project.
7.         It was further stated that the Opposite Parties collected the amount of Rs.17,17,317/-,  towards part price of the unit, in question, by making a false promise, that physical possession thereof, shall be handed over within a period of 3 years, from the date of allotment thereof, but they did not abide by their commitment. It was further stated that, as such, the amount deposited by the complainants, towards part price of the unit was utilized by the Opposite Parties, as a result whereof, they were caused huge financial loss. It was further stated that, as such, the complainants underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainants asked for the refund of amount with interest, but to no avail.
8.         It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.17,17,317/-, alongwith interest @18% P.A.; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, alongwith interest @18% P.A., for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
9.         The Opposite Parties, put in appearance, on 03.07.2015, and filed their joint written version, on 21.07.2015. In the joint written version, they pleaded that the complainants being speculators/investors, they had purchased the unit, in question, for commercial purpose, and, as such, they did not fall within  the definition of  ‘consumers’, as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It was further pleaded that since no application for filing a joint complaint was filed by the complainants, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was further pleaded that this Commission has no territorial and pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.  It was further pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, as an arbitration clause, existed, in the Allotment Letter aforesaid, and, in case of any dispute, the matter was to be referred to the Arbitration. It was stated that since it was clearly mentioned in Clause 11 of the allotment letter that possession of the unit, in question, was proposed to be delivered within 3 years from the date of booking of the same, as such, time was not the essence of  contract. However, the factum of allotment of unit, in question, in favour of the complainants, vide allotment letter dated 05.11.2009, Annexure C-1, was admitted. It was  further stated that the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.16,79,057/-, towards part price of the said unit. It was not disputed that possession of the unit, in question, could not be delivered, in favour of the complainants, by the stipulated date, or even till date. It was further stated that since the complainants accepted the terms, conditions and covenants of the allotment letter, Annexure C-1, without any demur or protest, in the year 2009, they could not be allowed to rake up any controversy, outside the ambit of the same (allotment letter) at a later stage. It was further stated that the layout plans, including the area of the unit, in question, were indicative and not final, in any manner, so as to thrust any obligation upon the Opposite Parties, not to vary the same at a later stage any time. It was further stated that demand letter dated 27.03.2015, was issued to the complainants, on account of inadvertent error, which was later on withdrawn, by the Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
10.         The complainants filed rejoinder, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version, filed by the Opposite Parties.
11.         Complaint No.2, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
12.         The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh.Vinod Thakur, their General Manager (Sales and Marketing), by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 
13.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
14.         The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants fall within the definition of consumers or not. No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, submitted that since the complainants purchased the commercial unit, for use thereof for commercial purpose, they (complainants), did not fall within the definition of consumers. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It may be stated here that, from the Allotment Letter dated 05.11.2009 Annexure C-1, it is evident, that a commercial unit, measuring 51.70 square meters, was allotted to the complainants, for a sum of Rs.19,75,043/-. The question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the commercial unit, measuring 51.70 square meters, referred to above, the size whereof is very small, was intended to be purchased by the complainants, for running commercial activity, on a large scale, for earning huge profits, or for earning their livelihood, by way of self-employment. It may be stated here, that it was clearly averred by the complainants, in the complaint, that the said commercial space had been purchased by them, for setting up consultation/ professional office, for complainant No.2, for earning livelihood by way of self employment. Even the price of the said unit was Rs.19,75,043/-. Whatever activity was to be carried on, in the said commercial space, was to be on small scale. No evidence was produced, by the Opposite Parties, that the complainants are property dealers, dealing in the sale and purchase of real estate. No evidence was also produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainants were engaged in any other commercial activities, as a result whereof, they were earning huge profits. In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Usha Vohra, IV (2009) CPJ 305 (NC),  the complainant was allotted a booth in Sector 10, Panchkula, on 15.10.1991,  for which she had paid a total consideration of Rs.8,29,354.50, till 31.12.1996. There was no averment, in the complaint, that the same was purchased by the complainant, for earning her livelihood, by way of self employment. The complaint was decided, in favour of the complainant, by the District Forum, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the excess amount charged. An appeal was preferred, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a Revision Petition was filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. During the course of Revision Petition, an argument was advanced, that since the complainant was allotted booth, which was obviously for commercial purpose, she did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid case, held that the mere fact that the respondent/complainant, had been allotted a booth, no conclusive finding, could be recorded about the same (booth) having been allotted for commercial consideration, and, not for earning livelihood, as that would require a lot of consideration to unsuit her. In Remington Rand of India Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Pioneer Typewriter Co. I (1996) CPJ 317 (NC),  a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the complainant purchased a Paper Copier Machine for Rs.1,43,000/-, from the Opposite Party, which did not give satisfactory service. No averment, was made, in the complaint, that the Paper Copier Machine, had been purchased by the complainant, for earning livelihood, by way of self employment. Ultimately, the machine became defective, and the complaint for replacement of the same, was filed. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided the complaint, in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the Opposite Party/appellant, which took up the plea, that the complainant/respondent, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as the machine was purchased by it, for running the business, on a large scale, for earning huge profits. In these circumstances, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the firm of the complainant, was indeed a small unit, and just because it was a partnership firm, it could not be concluded that it was engaged, in a large scale commercial activity, for earning huge profits. It was further held that since loan was obtained by the complainant/ respondent, from the Bank, for purchasing the machine, which fact, in itself, clearly proved that the complainant was to run a small venture, to earn its livelihood, by way of self employment. In Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation IV (2008) CPJ 294, a case decided by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, an application for allotment of an  industrial plot, was made by the complainant, but no averment was made, in the complaint, by the complainant, that it intended to purchase the same with a view to earn livelihood, by way of self employment. However, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, held that when the industrial plot was not allotted to the complainant, it sought refund, and, under these circumstances, it fell within the definition of a ‘consumer’.
15.          As per  the explanation appended  to clause (ii) of Section 2(d) of the  Act ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her, and services availed of  by him/her exclusively, for the purpose of  earning his/her livelihood, by means of self-employment.  It   is not the value of the goods, that matters, but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self-employment" make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought, must be used, by the buyer himself, by employing himself, for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis that   a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, to ply it, himself, on hire, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck, who purchases it, for plying it as a public carrier, by himself, would be a consumer. A person, who purchases a lathe machine, or other machine, to operate it himself, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. In the above illustrations, if such a buyer, takes the assistance of one or two persons, to assist/help him, in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine, or other machine, to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation, flowing from the expressions "used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16.         The  next question, that falls for consideration,  is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint could be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him/her. In the instant case, the cancellation notice dated 04.04.2013 Annexure C-10, at pages 59 and 60, in respect of the said unit, as also the letter dated 12.03.2015, at pages 48 and 49 of the file, raising demand of an amount, towards the price of the unit, were issued by Opposite Party No.2, to the complainants, from its Office, at Chandigarh. It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission.  This Commission has, therefore, got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, that this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
17.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got the pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint or not. It may be stated here, that the basic price of the  unit, in question,   was    Rs.19,75,043/-. The complainants have sought refund of the amount of Rs.17,17,317/-, paid by them, towards part price of the unit,  in question, alongwith  interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, alongwith interest @18% P.A., for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The amount of refund sought, plus (+) compensation, and cost, claimed by the complainants, in the complaint, [excluding the interest claimed @18% P.A. aforesaid] came to be around Rs.27,42,317/-, and, as such, fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the consumer complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of the reason, that an arbitration Clause existed, in Allotment Letter dated 05.11.2009 Annexure C-1. With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986, is required to be made, which reads as under;

“3.Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

19.         Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of arbitration Clause, in the Allotment Letter dated 05.11.2009 Annexure C-1, would not oust the Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  Similar principle of law, was laid down, in  Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I. Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC). In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.   
20.         No doubt, another objection was taken by the Opposite Party, that since the complainants had not moved an application, seeking permission to file the instant complaint, jointly, the same (complaint) was liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, also does not merit acceptance. It may be stated here, that since the complaint has been filed by both the complainants, being allottees, the mere fact that no application was moved for filing the same jointly was of no consequence. Once the complaint was admitted, permission to file the same   jointly, to the complainants, stood automatically deemed  to  be granted. Even otherwise, the Act is a beneficial legislation, the sole object whereof, is to provide speedy, inexpensive and hassle free redressal to the grievances of the consumers. The Commission is not required to enter into hyper-technicalities, to deny substantial justice. Under these circumstances, the objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
21.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants. Undisputedly, the complainants submitted an application, for allotment of the unit, in question, to the Opposite Parties, in the project, which was floated by them. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainants were allotted Unit No. SH-23UGF, measuring 51.70 square meters, the total price whereof was Rs.19,75,043/-. According to condition number 11 of the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, the developer was proposed to handover physical possession of the unit, to the allottee(s), within three years, from the date of issuance of the same (allotment letter), subject to force-majeure circumstances. It was further mentioned in the said Clause, that on account of force-majeure circumstances, the Opposite Parties were entitled to a reasonable extension of time, for delivery of possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants. The letter of allotment was issued by the Opposite Parties, on 05.11.2009. It was, in  clear-cut terms, mentioned in the allotment letter, that possession of the unit, in question, was proposed to be delivered within a period of three years, from 05.11.2009, subject to force majeure circumstances. On the other hand, not even a fleeting reference was made by the Opposite Parties, in their written version,  as to what prevented them from completing the development and offering possession of the unit by the stipulated date. Even no cogent and reliable evidence, was produced by the Opposite Parties, in this regard. The mere fact that only proposed  time,  for the delivery of physical possession was provided, as per Clause no.11 of the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, did not mean that the builder could delay the same (delivery of physical possession), of the units, for years together. Period of three years provided, in the allotment letter, for delivery of possession could be said to be reasonable. The amount of Rs.17,17,317/-, included service tax, towards part price of the unit, has already been deposited by the complainants, with the Opposite Parties. The complainants, no doubt, opted for the construction linked plan, yet, that did not mean that they were required to make payment of the remaining amount, even if, there was no development, at the site. Since the complainants had already made payment of more than 90% of price of the unit, when they saw that neither there was any progress in development, at the site, nor any date was committed by the Opposite Parties, when contacted, regarding the delivery of physical possession of the same, they were not bound to make payment of the remaining price of the unit, in question. No cogent and convincing evidence was brought, on record, by the Opposite Parties, regarding the development made by them, within 3 years, from the date of allotment of unit. Even, no cogent evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, as to upto which stage, the construction/development had reached, after the expiry of a period of 3 years, from the date of allotment of the unit, in favour of the complainants. There is, nothing, on record, that even by the time, the complaint was filed, by the complainant, any construction/development  had been made by the Opposite Parties, and, as such, the question of delivery of physical possession of the unit did not at all arise. In Prasad Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs E.Mahender Reddy & Ors. 1(2009)CPJ 136 (NC),  no development work had been  carried out, at the site. Thus, the   payment of further installments, was stopped by the complainant. It was, in these circumstances, held by the Hon’ble National Commission, that the builder could not be allowed to take shelter, under any clause of the agreement, to usurp the money deposited by the complainant. It was further held that, if any clause, in the agreement, entitled the builder to forfeit the deposited amount, even if, the fault was on his part, that  could be said to be heavily loaded, in his favour, and it  amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice. The National Commission, ultimately, upheld the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the refund of the deposited amount, with interest. The principle of law, laid down in Prasad Homes Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra)  is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.  Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the complainants were at fault. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties, were at fault, in not delivering possession of the unit, within 3 years  from 05.11.2009 i.e. from the date of issuance of the letter of allotment, to the complainants. The Opposite Parties were, thus, not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
22.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to the refund of amount deposited by them. As stated above, there is, nothing, on record, that even by the time, the complaint was filed, by the complainants, any development had been made by the Opposite Parties, and, as such, the question of delivery of physical possession of the unit did not at all arise. The complainants could not wait indefinitely, at the whims and fancies of the Opposite Parties. The complainants were not handed over physical possession of the unit, in question,  even after more than 6 years of the issuance of allotment letter, in their favour, though the proposed period for delivery of the same was three years. The Opposite Parties, thus, have no legal right, to retain the amount deposited by the complainants.  The complainants are, thus, entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.17,17,317/-. By not refunding the amount, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service.
23.         No doubt, it was also submitted by the Counsel for the complainants, that since there is a provision, in the allotment letter, that for delay, in handing over possession, only compensation/penalty for the period of delay would be paid, as such, refund of the amount, paid by the complainants, could not be claimed by them. It may be stated here, that the mere fact that possession of the unit, in question, was not even offered to the complainants, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed, in itself was sufficient that the Opposite Parties are unable to hand over the same. As stated above, not even a fleeting reference was made by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, as to by which date, they could deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants. The Opposite Parties could not delay delivery of physical possession, of the unit, for years together. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties had no right to usurp the hard earned money of the complainants, for an indefinite period. In these circumstances, the complainants could certainly ask for the refund for amount, alongwith interest and compensation. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to interest, on the amount deposited by them, in the circumstances, referred to above. The amount of Rs.17,17,317/-, has been improperly and illegally retained by the Opposite Parties. They have been earning huge profits, by investing the same, in their activity of construction, and, on the other hand, the complainants are being deprived of their hard earned money. Had this amount been deposited by the complainants, in some bank, they would have earned handsome interest thereon. For causing financial loss to the complainants, by depriving them from utilizing the amount, aforesaid, for a sufficient longer period, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest @12% P.A. to them, from the respective dates of deposits.
25.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, for deficiency in rendering service, indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and mental agony and physical harassment caused to them (complainants) at their  (Opposite Parties) hands. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainants. The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation.  It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.  Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Consumer Foras, to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which, in law, is otherwise, the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainants. The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, the hard earned money of the complainants was used by the Opposite Party, for a long time, without either delivering physical possession of the unit, in question or refunding the same (amount). The complainants purchased the unit, in question, by depositing a huge amount, with the Opposite Party, in the hope of starting their consultation/professional office, by way of self employment, for earning their livelihood. Their hopes were, however, dashed to the ground, when the development was not even in the sight, nor the question of delivery of possession of the unit, in the near future arose. The complainants shall also not be able to purchase the unit, like the one, in question, at the same rate, at which it was allotted to them, due to escalation in prices. The complainants, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. In this view of the matter, the complainants, in our considered opinion, are entitled to compensation, for deficiency in rendering service, indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party and mental agony and physical harassment caused to them, at their (Opposite Parties) hands, as also escalation in prices of the real estate, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs.One lac), which could be said to be adequate and reasonable.
26.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
27.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-
    1. To refund the amount of  Rs.17,17,317/-, to the complainants, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
    2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs.Once lac), for deficiency in rendering service, indulgence into unfair trade practice, causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants at their (Opposite Parties) hands and escalation in prices, to them (complainants), within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
    3.  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-to the complainants.
    4. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @15% P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest @12% P.A., on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs.
28.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
29.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

August 3, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Rg.