Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/386/2016

Anoop Jethwani - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dhawal P S Ahluwalia, Adv.,

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint No.	:	382 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Sh.Sarbjot Singh Sandhu and
2. Sohan Singh Sandhu wife of Sarbjot Singh Sandhu

Both residents of #564-L, Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3.  

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	383 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Dr. Bhoop Singh son of Sh.Sajjan Singh.
2. Joyti Rani wife of Bhoop Singh.

Both residents of Flat No.309, Chinar Heights, PeermuChalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	384 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Vikrant Mahajan son of Sh.Satish Mahajan.
2. Smt.Swapna Mahajan wife of Vikrant Mahajan, resident of 42-C, Janta Colony, Green Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	385 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

Dev Bala Salwan, resident of Flat No.102, GH-28, Sector 20, Panchkula.

…Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

 

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainant.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	386 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Anoop Jethwani.
2. Smt.Mona Jethwani wife of Anoop Jethwani.

Both residents of C-10, 2^nd Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	387 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Hansraj Sharda
2. Mrs.Usha Sharda wife of Hansraj Sharda.

Both residents of House No.288, Sector 9, Panchkula.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	388 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Anita Jain wife of Rakesh Jain.
2. Sh.Rakesh Jain

Both residents of House No.65, Kalgidhar Enclave, Baltana, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	389 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

Sudesh Moudgil wife of Sh.Ved Prakash Moudgil, aged 65 years, resident of Flat No.108, GH-34, Sector 20, Panchkula.

…Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainant.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

Complaint No.	:	390 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

Sh.Vaibhav Vaid son of Sh.Vinod Vaid, resident of Flat No.115, GH-28, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 5, Panchkula.

…Complainant

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainant.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

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

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

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

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

 

                By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid nine consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. In all the complaints, refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest, compensation etc. has been claimed by the complainant(s). At the time of arguments, on 23.11.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for all the parties, that, in view of above, these nine complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2.         Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.382 of 2016 titled as Sarbjot Singh Sandhu and another Vs. BCL Homes Limited and others.
3.         The complainants are residents of Jalandhar. To settle their families near to Chandigarh, they opted to purchase an apartment in a project, launched by opposite parties no.1 to 3, under the name and style “Chinar Homes”, Kishanpura, Zirakpur, Mohali. As such, they moved an application and also deposited an amount of Rs.8,30,000/-, against receipts dated 21.09.2011. Total sale consideration of the unit was fixed at Rs.41.50 lacs. It was stated that by 13.03.2013, the complainants had paid substantial amount, towards sale consideration of the said unit, in the following manner:-

Sr.No.	Date	Amount
	13.02.2012	415000.00
	13.02.2012	415000.00
	30.03.2012	415000.00
	02.06.2012	415000.00
	25.08.2012	415000.00
	25.08.2012	12824.00
	26.12.2012	427824.00
	13.03.2013	415000.00
	13.03.2013	12824.00

 

 

4.         Upto 13.03.2013, the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.37,73,472/-. Allotment letter Annexure C-2 was issued on 21.09.2011, qua 3BHK apartment bearing no.625, measuring 2170 square feet, 6^th floor, Tower T-13, Chinar Homes. As per schedule, payments so mentioned in the said allotment letter was paid, in the manner, referred to in earlier part of this order.  Rest of the amount was to be paid, on offer of possession of the flat. Price of the flat, referred to above, also includes EDC, within the boundary of the said group housing project. As per Clause 9 of the allotment letter, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants, by opposite parties no.1 to 3, within a period of 18 to 24 months, with a grace period of three months (total 27 months), from the date of issuance of allotment letter i.e. on or before 20.12.2013, after providing all the basic amenities. It was further stipulated in Clause 9 that, in case, opposite parties no.1 to 3, 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.
5.         It is further stated that when the project site was visited, it transpired that progress of construction is very slow. Possession was not offered in time. Requests made by the complainants to complete the construction and deliver possession of the unit, were not considered. It was also found that construction had virtually stopped. On inquiry, the complainants were intimated that it will start soon. The complainants visited the site, in the year 2014 and 2015 and were shocked to see that not even one tower, in the project was complete for occupation. There requests to offer possession; pay compensation for the period of delay in terms of Clause referred to above, was not considered at all. The complainants were living in a rented accommodation. They wanted to shift into their own flat, at the earliest. However, their dream was shattered on account of false promises, made by opposite parties no.1 to 3. When, grievance of the complainants regarding refund of amount deposited; payment of delayed compensation for the period of delay; compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment was not redressed, they served legal notice dated 10.06.2016. However, they failed to get any positive response.

                It is further positive case of the complainants that even internal development like laying of roads, sewerage treatment plant etc. is not complete. To show that development/construction work was not complete at the site, photographs taken at the site have been placed on record.

6.         By stating as above, it is prayed that directions be issued to opposite parties No.1  to 3, to refund the amount paid alongwith interest. Additional prayer has been made to issue directions to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay the amount of rent @Rs.10,000/- per month, for the delayed period. Besides above, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses has also been claimed.
7.         Notice was served upon the opposite parties.
8.         Opposite parties no.1 to 3 in their joint written reply 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 further stated that opposite parties no.1 to 3 have already appointed an Arbitrator in the matter, intimation whereof has been conveyed to the complainants vide notice dated 31.08.2016. It was averred that the complainants have invoked the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal, as such, they cannot be allowed to seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act). Territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was also disputed. It was averred that the complaint filed by the complainants is motivated one and is a result of malafide. It was stated that the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. It was also pleaded that the present complaint is barred by limitation.
9.         On merits, purchase of flat by the complainants, for the price, as stated in earlier part of this order, is not disputed. Payments made were also not disputed. It was averred that delay in delivery of possession of the unit occurred because the complainants defaulted in making payment of installments, as such, they are not entitled to compensation for the period of delay. It was further averred that no service was to be provided to the complainants, as such, they would not fall within the definition of consumer. It is further stated that possession of the unit could not be offered also on account of force majeure circumstances. It was averred that loan was raised from opposite party no.4/bank, however, the said bank had forged the documents and proceedings are going on to settle the said dispute.  It was stated that land underneath the project stood mortgaged with opposite party no.4. An attempt has been made to shift delay caused, to the actions taken by opposite party no.4, to realize amount paid to opposite parties no.1 to 3. Receipt of legal notice as also remaining averments were denied being wrong.
10.         Opposite party no.4, in its written version stated that opposite parties no.1 to 3 have defaulted in repayment of loan, as a result whereof, dispute is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was further stated that since no specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against opposite party no.4, as such, the complaint qua it be dismissed with no order as to cost.
11.         The parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
12.         We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through record of all the cases, very minutely, and are of the considered opinion, that all the complaints are liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

                First of all, we need to deal with the preliminary objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to defeat claim raised by the complainants. By making reference to Clause No.22 of the Allotment Letter dated 21.09.2011, it was stated that in the face of settlement of 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. We feel that the argument raised is liable to be rejected.

                To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), 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.”

                It is also desirable to reproduce unamended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, which reads thus:- 

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an  arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”

13.         Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of 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) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the Allotment Letter, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.
14.         In the year 2015, many amendments were effected in the provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act, reads as under:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.”

15.         Now it is to be seen, whether, after amendment in Section 8 of the principal Act, any additional right has accrued to the service provider(s), to say that on account of existence of arbitration Clause in the Allotment Letter, for settling the disputes through an Arbitrator, the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, and also of the National Commission, in large number of judgments, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides additional remedy, notwithstanding any other remedy available to a consumer. The said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act/Law.
16.         We will have to see what difference has been made by the amendment, in the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act. After amendment, it reads that a Judicial Authority is supposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, if there exists an arbitration clause in the Allotment Letter, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other Court, unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. The legislation was alive to the ratio of the judgments, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. Vide those judgments, it is specifically mandated that under Section 3 of 1986 Act, an additional remedy is available to the consumer(s), which is not in derogation to any other Act. As and when any argument was raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Commission in the judgments, referred to above, have made it very clear that in the face of Section 8 of 1996 Act and existence of arbitration Clause in any agreement or Allotment Letter, it is still opened to the Consumer Foras to entertain the consumer complaints. None of the judgments ever conferred any jurisdiction upon the Consumer Foras to entertain such like complaints. Only the legal issues, as existed in the Statute Book, were explained vide different judgments. If we look into amended provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act, it explains  that judicial Authority needs to refer dispute, in which arbitration agreement exist to settle the disputes notwithstanding any judgment/decree or order of any Court. That may be true where in a case, some order has been passed by any Court, making arbitration Agreement non-applicable to a dispute/parties. However, in the present case, the above said argument is not available. The jurisdiction of Consumer Foras to entertain consumer complaints, in the face of arbitration clause in the Agreement or Allotment Letter, is in-built in 1986 Act. It was not given to these Foras, by any judgment ever. The provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act interpreted vide judgments vis a vis Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act, were known to the legislature, when the amended Act 2015 was passed. If there was any intention on the part of the legislature, then it would have been very conveniently provided that notwithstanding any remedy available in 1986 Act, it would be binding upon the judicial Authority to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, in case of existence of arbitration agreement, however, it was not so said.
17.         We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/ traders. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/-. As per the mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party(s). In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months’ time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act),  the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of Arbitrator’s fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act.
18.         The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. In the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase the unit, in the said project, launched by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in the manner explained above. They are now running behind opposite parties no.1 to 3, to get their money back, as they failed to honour the commitments made. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of 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), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.
19.         Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in  Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha  (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

                In view of the above, the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause 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, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

20.         It is also on record that in a very dubious manner, an attempt has been made by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to escape from the jurisdiction of this Commission. In the present case, notice of motion was issued in this complaint on 26.07.2016. Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate, puts in appearance on 07.09.2016 and sought time to file reply and evidence. It appears that in the meantime, to circumvent the proceedings pending before this Commission, notice of appointment of an Arbitrator was sent by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the complainants on 31.08.2016. Taking note of above said fact, on 13.10.2016, with a view to ward off any eventuality of coming any contrary judgment, directions were issued to the Arbitrator so appointed, not to proceed further with the arbitration proceedings. Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 was directed to bring the order passed by this Commission, to the notice of the Arbitrator. Such like attitude on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 3 deserves deprecation. As has been held in earlier part of this order, that the proceedings under the Act are independent and existence of any Clause to settle dispute through Arbitration will not debar this Commission to entertain the complaint and grant an appropriate relief in case of deficiency in providing service and/or adoption of unfair trade practice, if proved on record on the part of the opposite party(s). In view of above, plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.
21.         It is proved on record that the complainants purchased a built-up unit, referred to above, for an amount of Rs.41.50 lacs, in a project launched by opposite parties no.1 to 3. Allotment letter was issued in their favour on 21.09.2011. Clause 9 of the said allotment letter reads thus:-

“The possession of the said flat shall be delivered to the Allottee(s) in 18-24 months from the date of this Agreement/allotment, with a grace period of 03 months. However, in the event there is a delay in offering the possession/permissive possession of the Flat in the said period, for any reason not directly attributable to BCL Homes Ltd. shall be entitled to reasonable extension in time for delivery of possession/permissive possession. In the event of completion of the said Flat being delayed beyond 27 months from the date of this Agreement/allotment, for reasons directly attributable to BCL Homes Ltd. shall be liable to pay to the Allottee(s) monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- for the period of delay beyond the said 27 months period on the amount paid to BCL Homes Ltd. by the Allottee. The possession of the Flat shall be handed over on receipt of the all dues, documents, and on fulfillment of conditions as stipulated herein. If the physical possession is not taken over at site within 45 days of the issue of the possession letter, the Allottee shall pay watch and ward charges @0.1% of the total cost of the flat per month. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, if the allottee fails to take over possession of the said flat within six months from the date of issue of possession letter, even if other portions of Project are not complete or are in the course of construction the allotment would be liable for cancellation”.

 

22.         It is stipulated therein that possession of the unit, complete in all respects, after making necessary development in the project will be delivered to the complainants, within a period of 18 to 24 months, with a grace period of three months, from the date of issuance of allotment letter. However, if possession is not delivered within 27 months as committed, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, for the period of delay.

                It is virtually admitted on record that till today, no offer has been made to hand over possession of the constructed unit by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the complainants. Rather perusal of documents, as also photographs placed on record depicts that the project is not complete and construction is virtually stopped at the site. In a case titled as Chand Berry and another Vs. BCL Homes Limited and others, consumer complaint no.292 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 19.02.2016, under similar circumstances, when deciding that complaint filed by the complainants stating that for non-delivery of possession, directions be issued to refund amount with interest, this Commission has observed as under:-

“It is a case of failed promise and virtually deceit has been committed by opposite parties no.1 to 3, with the complainants. It was never disclosed to the complainants, by opposite parties no.1 to 3,  that the entire project land and construction to be raised thereon, stood mortgaged with opposite party no.5. Virtually after making more than 95% of the price of unit, delivery of possession thereof is not expected even in near future. Above fact clearly amounted to deficiency in providing service on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 3, which entitles the complainants  to get refund of amount paid by them, towards the unit.”

 

23.         It was noted as a matter of concern that the entire project site and the construction raised thereon stood mortgaged with the Bank namely Canara Bank/opposite party no.4. 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, Debt Recovery Tribunal etc. This act of opposite parties no.1 to 3, 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, arose between opposite parties no.1 to 3 and opposite party no.4 (third party, with which there is no privity of contract with the complainants). If that is so, one cannot visualize handing over possession of the units, in near future. Neither in the written statement nor at the time of arguments, any commitment was made, giving exact time-frame, within which period, possession of the unit can be delivered to the complainants. It is on record that despite request made by the complainants, through legal notice dated 10.06.2016 (through registered post) to refund the amount with interest thereon or in the alternative to deliver possession of the unit, even reply was not given by opposite parties no.1 to 3. Above facts clearly amounted to deficiency in providing service on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 3, which entitle the complainants to get refund of amount paid by them, towards the unit.
24.         As far as the plea taken by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to the effect that delay took place on account of the reason that there was delay in making payment on the part of the complainants, it may be stated here that, in the first instance, nothing has been brought on record, in the shape of any customer ledger or statement of account, pertaining to the account of the complainants, to prove that they were defaulters in making payment towards price of the said flat. In the absence of any evidence, a bald plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, cannot be considered. Secondly, such a plea has no legs to stand, also in view of decision rendered by the National Commission, in a case titled as Puneet Malhotra Vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Consumer Complaint No.  232 of 2014, Decided on 29.01.2015, wherein under similar circumstances it was observed and held as under:-

“If some of the allottees had not made timely payment, it was for the opposite party to arrange the requisite finance either by taking loan or from its own resources or by liquidating Inventory at a lower price”.

 

                No help, therefore, can be drawn by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 out of the plea, raised by them, in this regard.

25.         An objection was also raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their written version, that since the unit, in question, was situated at Mohali, Punjab, and also all the payments were made at that place, as such, this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, it is evident from the record, that substantial amount, through various receipts (except few) was received by the Registered Office of opposite parties no.1 to 3 at Chandigarh i.e. Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

26.         Another objection was taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their written version, that no service was promised to be provided to the complainants, as such, consumer complaint is not maintainable.  

                It may be stated here that the complainants hired the services of opposite parties no.1 to 3, for purchasing the constructed unit, in question, and they were allotted the same for consideration. According to Clause 9 of the allotment letter, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were required to hand over possession of the unit, in question, 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 issuance of the same (allotment letter), after completing all the basic amenities, as provided in Clause 4 of the Allotment letter i.e. laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. A clear-cut promise was made by opposite parties no.1 to 3, vide Clause 4 of the Allotment Letter, for providing the services, referred to above. Neither the complainants purchased the unit, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis” nor it was a sale of flat only, without providing any service to them.  Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

27.         From the afore-extracted Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, it is evident that housing construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C.1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, could be availed of by the complainants, as they fall within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection  taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their written version, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
28.         Another objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here that the complainants have sought refund of amount of Rs.37,73,472/-  alongwith interest 24% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits; compensation @Rs.10,000/- per month for the period of delay; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.51,000/-, aggregate value whereof [excluding the interest claimed] fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.

                As far as the interest claimed by the complainants, on the amount aforesaid is concerned, it is not required to be added, at this stage, to the value of the reliefs claimed, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of law laid down by three Member Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC),  (prevailing till date), wherein it was clearly held that since rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of Consumer Foras, and that too at the stage, when the complaint is finally disposed of, as such, the same being imaginary would not be taken into consideration, at the time of filing of the same (complaint), for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. The principle of law, laid down, in the case referred to above, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In view of the above, the objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

29.         Further objection was taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in their written version, that the complaint filed by the complainants was barred by time.

                As  stated  above,  according to 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, from the date of issuance of the same (allotment letter) i.e. on or before 20.12.2013. Neither possession of the unit was offered nor delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date for want of construction and basic amenities at the site, nor the penalty amount, as provided in allotment letter, was paid to them nor the amount deposited by the complainants was refunded to them. There was, thus, a continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainants, to file the 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. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the opposite party/builder. It was known to the opposite party that the land, in question, was under litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.  

30.         As far as the objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to the effect that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of party(s), is concerned, it may be stated here that opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to clarify, as to which party(s) was/were required to be added or deleted, in the head-note of the instant complaint. Such an objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, therefore, being without any justification, is rejected.
31.         Hard-earned money, deposited by the complainants, towards the unit, in question, was utilized by opposite parties no.1 to 3, for a number of years. Opposite parties no.1 to 3, by neither delivering physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, by the stipulated date or even till date, nor refunding the deposited amount to the complainants, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainants, are, thus, entitled to the refund of Rs.37,73,472/- alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits.

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

32.         Prayer of the complainants for payment of rent amount @Rs.10,000/- per month, for the period of delay, cannot be accepted. Once this Commission is ordering refund of amount paid with interest, leviable from the dates of respective deposits, relief qua grant of rent amount cannot be granted. If it is granted, it would amount to giving double benefit to the complainants. Prayer made by the complainants, to this extent is rejected.
33.         No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties, in all the complaints.     
34.         For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, as per the directions given hereunder.

Consumer complaint bearing no.382 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.37,73,472/- to  the complainants,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.383 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.34,58,164/- to  the complainants,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.384 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.40,95,000/- to  the complainants,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.385 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.32,74,311/- to  the complainant,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.386 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.30 lacs to  the complainants,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.387 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.22,56,650/- to  the complainants,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.388 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.26,62,360/- to  the complainants,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.389 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.39.50 lacs to  the complainant, alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

Consumer complaint bearing no.390 of 2016. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of   Rs.29,34,168/- to  the complainant,  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
4. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

35.         The aforesaid awarded amounts, in the manner mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii), shall be paid by opposite parties no.1 to 3/builder/developer, to the complainant(s), in all the complaints, within a period of 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned in clause (i) shall carry penal interest @15% per annum instead of 12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits till realization and the amounts mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% per annum, in all the complaints, from the date of filing of the respective complaints, till realization.
36.         However, it is made clear that, in case, the complainant(s), in any complaint, has/have availed loan facility from any banking/financial institution(s), it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant(s).
37.         Certified copy of this order be placed in all the connected complaints, referred to above.
38.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
39.         The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

05.12.2016

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.

 

 

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint No.	:	386 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2016

 

1. Anoop Jethwani.
2. Smt.Mona Jethwani wife of Anoop Jethwani.

Both residents of C-10, 2^nd Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

…Complainants

V e r s u s

 

1. BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Project Incharge.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal, 253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…..Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

4. Canara Bank, Branch Office at Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party No.4

 

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

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

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-       Sh.Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the                      complainants.

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. 

Ms.Radhika Subhash, Advocate for opposite party no.4.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

               

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.382 of 2016 titled as Sarbjot Singh Sandhu and another Vs. BCL Homes Limited and others., this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 382 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 382 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Sd/-                 Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

 

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Rg.