Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/794/2017

Manju Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D K Singal & Ammish Goel, Adv.

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint No.	:	794 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	15.11.2017
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

1. Manju Bala w/o Sh.Raj Kumar
2. Raj Kumar s/o Sh.Hans Raj

Both R/o House No.409, Ward No.13, Karnail Singh Malay Wala Street, Mansa (Punjab)-151505.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.

IInd Address:-

R/o House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.

3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.

IInd Address:-

R/o House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.

4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.

IInd Address:-

R/o House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.

5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	67 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Rakesh Bala w/o Sh.Gian Chand R/o House No.209, Guhla Cheeka (Haryana).

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	68 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Sanjeev Gupta s/o Late Sh.Satparkash Gupta, R/o  House No.508, Chinar Apartments, Peer Mucchalla, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Punjab).

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

6.     State Bank of India (Erstwhile known as State Bank of Patiala)     through its Branch Manager, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana).

…..Performa opposite party

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Opposite parties no.1, 5 and 6 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	147 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	06.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Meenu Aggarwal w/o Neeraj Aggarwal, R/o  House No.851, Sector 8, Panchkula.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

6. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (Formerly known as First Blue Home Finance Limited), through its Branch Manager, having its Office at A-301 & 302, 3^rd Floor, Elante Office Complex Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002.

    …..Performa opposite party

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

None for opposite party no.6

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	149 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	06.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Manohar Tegta S/o Sh.Jai Karan Das Tegta R/o  Flat No.103, Group Housing Society 91, The Bal Vikas Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Peer Mushalla Rd, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana 134116.

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

6.     Axis Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.134-  135, Ground Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

…..Performa opposite party

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Sh.Nitin Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.6.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	171 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	21.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Lalit Mohan Sharma S/o Sh.Rajinder Parsad, R/o  House No.2220, Super Enclave Society, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh.

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

6.     Axis Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO       No.134-135, Ground Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

…..Performa opposite party

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Sh.Nitin Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.6.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	172 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	21.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Anita Singal w/o Sh.Nirmal Singal, R/o  House No.516, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh.

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

 

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

Complaint No.	:	173 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

1. Pratibha Nainta Thakur R/o  Jagdish House, Cliffed Estate, Below Oka Over, Shimla-171002 (Himachal Pradesh).
2. Rohit Thakur R/o  Jagdish House, Cliffed Estate, Below Oka Over, Shimla-171002 (Himachal Pradesh)

…Complainants

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	174 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

1. Rohit Kaushal S/o Late Sh.Kirat Kaushal, R/o  House No.124, Sector 11, Panchkula (Haryana).
2. Kamal Mukul Kushal S/o Late Sh.Kirat Kaushal, R/o  House No.124, Sector 11, Panchkula (Haryana).

…Complainants

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

6.     Bank of Maharashtra through its Branch Manager, SCO No.39, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana..

…..Performa opposite party

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

None for opposite party no.6.

Opposite parties no.1 and 5 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	249 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	30.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

1. Laj Rani Gupta w/o Late Sh.Hari Krishan Gupta, R/o  House No.506, Jawahar Nagar, Near Police Line Chowk, Ambala City (Haryana).
2. Kamal Parkash Singla s/o Late Sh.Hari Krishan Gupta, R/o  House No.506, Jawahar Nagar, Near Police Line Chowk, Ambala City (Haryana).

…Complainants

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

6.     HDFC Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO    No.153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Performa opposite party

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

Sh.Banni Thomas, Advocate for opposite party no.5.

Ms.Anjali Moudgil, Advocate for opposite party no.6.

Opposite party no.1 exparte.

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

Complaint No.	:	272 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	26.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Vanshi Kotru Tegta W/o Sh.Sauvik Tegta through his Father in Law, Sh.Balbir Tegta S/o Late. Sh.B.D. Tegta, R/o  Flat No.413, Block-A, Chinar Heights, Peer Mushalla, Municipal Council, Zirakpur, Post Office-Dhakoli, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, SAS Nagar-160104 (Punjab).

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 to 4.

Sh.Banni Thomas, Advocate for opposite party no.5.

Defence of Opposite party no.1 closed vide order dated 12.10.2018.

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

Complaint No.	:	296 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.12.2018

 

Rajnish Kaushal S/o Late Sh.Kirat Kaushal, R/o  House No.124, Sector 11, Panchkula (Haryana).

…Complainant

V e r s u s

1. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director/Additional Director/Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office at SCO No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, (U.T.), Chandigarh.
2. Tejinder Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
3. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula 134109 Haryana.
4. Rajeev Kumar, Additional Director, BCL Homes Limited, R/o  House No.173, Kamla Nagar Colony, Bathinda-151001, Punjab.
5. Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

Argued by:-       Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 to 4.

Sh.Banni Thomas, Advocate for opposite party no.5.

Defence of Opposite party no.1 closed vide order dated 12.10.2018.

 

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

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

                        MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                        SH.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                By this order, we propose to dispose of, aforesaid twelve (12) consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants. Arguments were heard in common, on 26.11.2018. In all the complaints, referred to above, issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. All the complainants, in the above complaints have sought possession of their respective units alongwith compensation for the period of delay in doing so; compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. As such, during arguments, it was agreed by the contesting parties, that all the twelve complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2.         To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.794 of 2017 titled as Manju Bala and another Vs. BCL Homes Limited and others. It is case of the complainants that being allured by the promises of opposite parties no.1 to 4,  in 2013, they opted to purchase an apartment/flat, in a project, launched by them, under the name and style “Chinar Homes”, Kishanpura, Zirakpur, Mohali. They moved an application for allotment of a flat, on making payment of Rs.8,10,000/-, vide receipts dated 04.01.2013 (Rs.6,60,000/-) and 30.01.2013 (Rs.1,50,000/-), respectively, towards booking amount. Price of the said unit was fixed at Rs.39 lacs, including external development charges.
3.         Allotment letter Annexure C-3 was issued on 30.01.2013, qua 3BHK flat bearing no.322-C, super area 2170 square feet, 3^rd Floor, Tower No.11 (in short the unit), in the said project. In order to make payment towards remaining sale consideration of the said unit, the complainant raised loan from opposite party no.5. Out of the sanctioned loan amount, Rs.20 lacs were released in favour of opposite parties no.1 to 4. In this manner, total amount of Rs.28,10,000/- stood paid by the complainants, towards price of the said unit. The said unit had been mortgaged with opposite party no.5, as security against the loan amount.
4.         It is definite case of the complainants that as per Clause 9 of the allotment letter dated 30.01.2013, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to them, by opposite parties no.1 to 4, within a period of 18 to 24 months, with a grace period of three months (total 27 months), from the date of signing of the said allotment letter i.e. latest by 29.04.2015, after providing all the basic amenities. It was further stipulated in Clause 9 that, in case, opposite parties no.1 to 4, failed to deliver possession of the unit by the promised date, they will make payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, to the complainants, towards rent, for the period of delay, beyond 27 months aforesaid.
5.         It is further case of the complainants that they had been regularly visiting the project site and were shocked to see that there was no sign of progress of construction. When possession of the unit was not delivered as per the stipulated date, the complainants made requests to deliver the same, however, they were given only false assurances. It was surprising to see that there was no internal development at the site. Further, the tower in which built-up unit was situated was also not complete. It was further stated that opposite parties no.1 to 4 have violated the provisions of (PAPRA). The complainants made visits to the project site, in the years 2016 and 2017, but position remained the same. It was pleaded that, as per information gathered by the complainants, opposite parties no.1 to 4 had defaulted in making repayment of loan amount raised by them (opposite parties no.1 to 4) against the said project, from opposite party no.5/Canara Bank. It is case of the complainants that to secure its rights, opposite party no.5/Bank has approached Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was pleaded that since the complainants have also been made as necessary parties to the said case, by opposite party no.5, as such, necessary directions be issued to it, not to sell the project/tower wherein the unit in question is located, to any purchaser/builder, without seeking their (complainants) prior consent.
6.         It was averred that on account of act and conduct of opposite parties no.1 to 4 in not completing construction of the unit and handing over possession thereof, the complainants are being forced to live in a rented accommodation, for which they are paying heavy rent, thereby causing financial loss to them. They are also paying huge amount of interest, against the loan amount raised from opposite party no.5. Apart from that, the complainants are also deprived of use of their flat, which they have purchased with a view to settle near Chandigarh/Panchkula, for getting proper education of their children from premier Educational Institute(s). Hence this complaint.
7.         In the reply filed by opposite parties no.2 to 4, serious objections were raised qua territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It was stated that the project, in which the flat was purchased by the complainants, is situated in Village Kishanpur, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab; sale consideration was also paid by the complainants, at that place; allotment letter was also signed at the said place, as such, this Commission at Chandigarh is not vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. It was pleaded that in the face of existence of arbitration Clause no.22 in the Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was pleaded that the complainants being investors, would not fall within definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of Act.   
8.         On merits, purchase of the unit, in question, by the complainants, for the price, as stated in earlier part of this order, is not disputed. Payments made were also not disputed. Issuance of Allotment Letter aforesaid, is admitted. It was also admitted that as per Clause 9 of the allotment letter, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants, within a period of 18 to 24 months, with a grace period of three months (total 27 months), from the date of signing of allotment letter i.e. on or before 29.04.2015, after providing all basic amenities. At the time of arguments, it was stated by Counsel for opposite parties no.2 to 4 that they (ops no.1 to 4) are ready to make payment of delayed compensation @Rs.10,000/- per month, for the period of delay, in offering possession of the unit, in question. It was further stated that possession of the unit could not be offered on account of force majeure circumstances, beyond the control of opposite parties no.2 to 4. It was averred that construction work is going on at the site; development work is almost complete and opposite parties no.2 to 4 are trying their level best to offer possession of the unit by the end of this month (December 2018). It was pleaded that delay, if any, took place, as opposite party no.5, from which opposite parties no.2 to 4 were to raise loan, played fraud with them. However, despite the fact that opposite party no.5 was at fault, it started action under SARFASI Act, against opposite parties no.2 to 4. At the same time, the complainants alongwith other allottees, approached Debt Recovery Tribunal against the opposite parties no.2 to 4. It was further stated that delay also took place, as there was slow down/recession in the market, resulting into shortage of building material like sand etc., which further resulted into increase of construction cost upto 30%. It was pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. It was averred that the complainants were defaulter in making payment towards price of the said unit. Remaining averments were denied being wrong.
9.         None put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 5, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.05.2018 and 26.03.2018 respectively. However, at the time of arguments, Sh.Paras Money Goyal, appeared and argued the case on behalf of opposite party no.1, as well as for opposite parties no.2 to 4.  
10.         In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in written version of opposite parties no.2 to 4
11.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their case.
12.         We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties, and have gone through record of the cases, very minutely.
13.         First, we will deal with an objection, raised by opposite parties no.2 to 4, that in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

               This objection has been raised in the written statement filed by opposite parties no.2 to 4, by placing reliance on Clause 22 contained in the allotment letter. This issue has already been dealt with, by this Commission, in a case titled as ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), and held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement/Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Recently, the larger Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, vide order dated 13.07.2017, has held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018.

                In view of the above, the objection raised by opposite parties no.2 to 4, in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.

14.         Further contention was raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 that the complainants are investors, as such, they are not consumers. We are not going to accept this argument. It may be stated here that there is nothing on the record that the complainants are the property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. On the other hand, the complainants in their complaint have clearly stated that the unit, in question, was purchased by them for their personal use. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties no.2 to 4, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Since, opposite parties no.2 to 4 have levelled allegations against the complainants, the onus lay upon them, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which they failed to do so. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

 “ In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots.  A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots.  In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members.  A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city.  A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house.  Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose.  In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

                The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by opposite parties no.2 to 4, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected. 

15.         Now we will deal with another objection raised by opposite parties no.2 to 4, to the effect that since the unit, in question, is situated at Mohali, Punjab, and also all the payments were received at Village Kishanpura, at the project site, as such, this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                After taking notice of provisions of Section 17 (2) (a) and (c) of the Act, the objection raised needs rejection. Relevant provisions reads thus:-

“Section 17 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

17.  [(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) …………………..

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.]”

 

                It is specifically stated that a consumer can file a complaint in the State commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party(s) actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business. It is very significant to add here that, earlier also, we have decided number of cases against opposite parties no.1 to 4, and while going through the record and evidence therein, it has been found that their Registered Office is situated at Chandigarh i.e. Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Daria, U.T., Chandigarh. Not only as above, in the connected cases aforesaid (for reference one of which is consumer complaint bearing No.173 of 2018), it is evident that the said Registered Office of opposite parties no.1 to 4 has received payments from the concerned allottee(s) therein and have issued receipts from the said (Chandigarh) Office. It is evident on record that opposite parties no.1 to 4 are having their Registered Office at Chandigarh, above fact is supported by document Annexure C-A (record pertaining to Insolvency Proceedings filed before NCLT, bearing CP (IB) No.98 of 2017) placed on record in this case, wherein, the address of opposite parties no.1 to 4 has been mentioned as BCL Homes Limited, Shop No.140, Village Dariya, Chandigarh-160002, by the opposite parties no.1 to 4. Each and every page of the said document has been signed by Director of opposite parties no.1 to 4 with stamp of the Company, indicating its address to be of Chandigarh. In view of above, it can safely be said that the Company is running its business from the said place at Chandigarh. As such, this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, in view of the provisions of Section 17 (2) (a) and (c) of the Act. Objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 4, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

16.         It is proved on record that the complainants have purchased a built-up unit, referred to above, for an amount of Rs.39 lacs, in a project launched by parties no.1 to 4. Allotment Letter/Agreement, in this case was signed between the parties on 30.01.2013. As stated above, as per Clause 9 of the Allotment Letter, it was committed by opposite parties no.1 to 4 that possession of the unit, in question, will be delivered to the complainants, on or before 29.04.2015, after providing all the basic amenities, subject to force majeure circumstances. It was further committed vide the said Allotment Letter that, in case, opposite parties no.1 to 4, failed to deliver possession of the unit by the said date, they were liable to make payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, to the complainants, towards rent, for the period of delay, beyond 27 months aforesaid.

                It is virtually admitted on record that till today, neither offer has been made by parties no.1 to 4, to hand over possession of the constructed unit to the complainants nor the penalty amount, referred to above, has been paid. Rather, parties no.1 to 4 are still saying that they are making efforts to complete construction and possession of the built-up unit to the complainants will be offered by the end of this year (December 2018). This appears to be a vague assurance, as no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record, to convince this Commission, regarding this fact. The onus to prove that the project has been completed or is going to complete shortly and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite parties no.1 to 4. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, it is very strange that not even a single document has been placed on record, by opposite parties no.1 to 4, in respect of the unit, in question, to prove that the construction is complete and they are actually ready for offer and delivery of possession, by the end of this year (December 2018). In case, all the development activities had been undertaken and construction of the flats is about to complete at the project site and possession is likely to be delivered shortly, then it was for opposite parties no.1 to 4, 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 and construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but they failed to do so. At the same time, opposite parties no.1 to 4 were also required to produce on record, a copy of the letter(s) vide which they have applied to the Govt. Authorities, for occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates, but they miserably failed to do that also.

                Furthermore, opposite parties no.1 to 4 failed to contend seriously against the allegations levelled by the complainants that the entire project site stood mortgaged with Canara Bank/opposite party no.5. This fact is also in the knowledge of this Commission, from the record pertaining to earlier consumer complaints filed against opposite parties no.1 to 4/BCL Homes Limited. At the time of arguments, it also transpires that for committing default in repayment of loan, dispute has been raised by the financial institutions in various Courts and also proceedings are going on in Debt Recovery Tribunal etc. This act of opposite parties no.1 to 4, in committing default in repayment of loan, in no manner can be termed as force majeure circumstances, and as such, they cannot claim any immunity, under the said plea. Even otherwise, the complainants have no concern, whatsoever, with the dispute, if any, between opposite parties no.1 to 4 and opposite party no.5/Canara Bank.  

                Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 made an attempt to wriggle out of the situation by stating that construction could not be completed on account of global recession/slow down in the market, resulting into shortage of building material. It is very significant to mention here that once opposite parties no.1 to 4 have already received more than 75% of the sale consideration, towards the unit(s), from the allottee(s), then it does not lie in their mouth, that they faced extreme financial hardship, due to global meltdown in the market, as far as the project, in question, is concerned. It is not that opposite parties no.1 to 4 were, in the first instance, required to develop the project, by arranging funds out of their own sources, and, thereafter, the units were to be sold to the allottees, on future payment basis. Had this been the case of opposite parties no.1 to 4, only in those circumstances, the plea  taken with regard to facing extreme financial hardship on account of global meltdown/shown in the market, would have been considered by this Commission.

                Even otherwise, the said difficulty/ground i.e. recession in the market/global meltdown would not fall under the definition of force majeure circumstances, for not completing the construction and development work at the site. A change in economic or market circumstances affecting the profitability of a contract or the circumstance, is not regarded as a force majeure condition. Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended, stopping suspending or delaying the construction/development work of the project, in which flat(s)/plot(s) were agreed to be sold to the consumers. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God, which could have delayed the completion of construction/development work in the project, within the time stipulated in the Agreement. A similar question fell for determination before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  2015 (4) CPR 34. The National Commission, in that case, while rejecting the plea of the builder, held as under:-

“Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the  complainant. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression ‘slow down’ would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down’ having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project”.

                The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Opposite parties no.1 to 4, therefore, cannot take shelter under the garb of force majeure Clause of the Agreement, for extension of period, for delivery of possession of the unit. By making a misleading statement, that  possession of the unit, in question, could have been delivered within a period of 27 months, from the date of signing of the allotment letter/agreement, but on the other hand, by not abiding by the commitments made and at the same time, taking  a bald stand that there was global recession or that there was shortage of building material in the market, opposite parties no.2 to 4 were not only deficient in providing service but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Under these circumstances, it can safely be said that such a plea has been taken by opposite parties no.2 to 4, for the first time, in the written statement, just with a view to escape from their liability, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly rejected.

                Under above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the complainants are entitled to get possession of the unit, in question and also they are required to be suitably compensated for inordinate delay in the matter.

17.         Now the question which needs consideration, is, as to what relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay in offering possession of a residential unit/plot purchased, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the builder. At the time of arguments, Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 contended that they (opposite parties no.1 to 4) are ready to pay compensation @Rs.10,000/- per month, as per Clause 9 contained in the allotment letter/agreement. On the other hand, Counsel for the complainants contended that the said clause can be made applicable, in case, there was only minor delay, in delivery of possession of the unit, in question, and not where the delay is huge. In case, opposite parties no.1 to 4 are allowed to invoke the said Clause, there will be no pressure upon them (opposite parties no.1 to 4), to complete the construction, since they will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation @Rs.10,000/- per month, instead of completing the construction. Similar, question came up for consideration before this Commission in Ankur Gupta Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another, Consumer Case No.309 of 2016 decided on 22.11.2016, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“What relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay, in offering possession, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Resident's Association Vs. Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., consumer complaint no.45/2015, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, on 06.05.2016, wherein, it was argued by the project proponent that at the maximum, as provided in the Agreement, the consumer will be entitled to claim penalty for delayed compensation @Rs.5/- per square feet, per month. Noting that in case of delay in making payment, the project proponent was charging heavy penal interest, instead of penal amount, the interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay was granted, by holding as under:-

“Though, the Agreement between the developer and the flat buyers provides for payment of compensation in case of delay @ Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area per month, such clauses have been found to be unfair trade practice and have been consistently rejected by this Commission in several decision, including  Consumer Complaint No. 427 of 2014 Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 08.6.2015.  Therefore, the aforesaid clauses cannot be taken into consideration, while determining the compensation payable to the members of the complainant association for the aforesaid delay in completion of construction.”

Not only this, in another case, titled as Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest  on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-

“8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1)     xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.”

Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, if interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, is awarded, that would meet the ends of justice.”

                Not only as above, in H.P. Housing Board Vs. Janak Gupta [2009] INSC 627 (26 March 2009) (Civil Appeal No. 6346 of 2002), it was clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the cases of delay, in delivery of possession, award of interest, on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, would meet the ends of justice.

                It is not disputed that possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered on or before 29.04.2015, which admittedly has not been delivered. Taking note of above said proposition of law, ends of justice will meet, if interest @9% p.a. is granted for the period of delay, to the complainants whereof 29.04.2015 onwards till possession of the unit, in question, is actually delivered to them by opposite parties no.1 to 4.

                Besides as above, opposite parties no.1 to 4 are also liable to pay compensation to the complainants, for providing them deficient service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.

18.         Further objection taken by opposite parties no.2 to 4, that the complaint filed by the complainants is barred by time, also stands rejected in view of the reason that since it is an admitted fact that neither possession of the unit was offered nor delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date or even till date,  for want of construction and basic amenities at the site, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainants, to file this complaint. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra  Ramniklal  Shah and anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269 = AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law laid down in the said case is fully applicable to the present case.  
19.         As far as plea taken by opposite parties no.2 to 4 to the effect that the complainants were defaulter in making payment towards price of the said unit, it may be stated here that no documentary evidence in that regard has been placed on record by them. Even otherwise, once it has been proved on record that opposite parties no.1 to 4 are guilty of delay in completing the project and even as on today the complainants are empty handed, as such, in those circumstances, it is not expected from the complainants to keep on making payments to them. Still, the complainants have already paid more than about 75% of sale consideration against the said unit.  If the complainants have not made the remaining amount towards price of the said unit, in our considered opinion, they were well within their right, to do so, in view of principle of law laid down in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments can be stopped by the purchaser. As such, plea taken by opposite parties no.2 to 4, in this regard, stands rejected.  
20.         Prayer has been made by the complainants that directions be issued to opposite party no.5, that, in case, proceedings under order of any Tribunal/Court, relating to auction of the project site mortgaged with it, are carried out, the new purchaser/builder shall hand over possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, alongwith all basic amenities to them (complainants). It may be stated here that no such directions can be issued by this Commission. Neither, there is any privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party no.5 in that regard nor any allegations have been levelled by them against it nor any documentary evidence has been placed on record, which shows that it (opposite party no.5) was deficient in providing service or adopted any unfair trade practice with them (complainants). However, the complainants are free to avail any legal remedy available with them, to get such directions in their favour, if permissible under law. As such prayer made by the complainants, in this regard, is rejected.
21.         No other point was urged by the contesting parties.
22.         For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

 

In consumer complaint bearing No.794 of 2017, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 29.04.2015 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite party no.5 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.67 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 27.09.2013 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite party no.5 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.68 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant)).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 27.09.2013 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite parties no.5 and 6 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.147 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 11.02.2015 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite parties no.5 and 6 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.149 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainants, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 05.04.2014 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite parties no.5 and 6 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.171 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 21.10.2013 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite parties no.5 and 6 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.172 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein,  to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 07.10.2013 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite party no.5 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.173 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainants, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 27.07.2014 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite party no.5 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.174 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainants, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 06.01.2014 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite parties no.5 and 6 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.249 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainants, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 16.11.2013  (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite parties no.5 and 6 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.272 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 30.04.2014 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite party no.5 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

In consumer complaint bearing No.296 of 2018, opposite parties no.1 to 4, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To hand over actual physical possession of the unit purchased therein, to the complainant, within a period of 04 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 06.01.2014 (promised date) to 31.12.2018, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall further carry penal interest @11% p.a.  from the date of default instead of 9% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.01.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of actual physical possession of the unit, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. Complaint against opposite party no.5 stands dismissed with no order as to cost, as far as the present complaint is concerned.

23.         Furthermore, in all the respective consumer complaints, referred to above, the opposite parties/builder/BCL Homes is also directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lakh, respectively i.e. in each case, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant(s), deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice and also litigation cost to the tune of Rs.33,000/-, respectively, i.e. in each case, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of filing the respective complaint(s) till realization.
24.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and also one copy be placed in connected files, referred to above.
25.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

10.12.2018

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg.