Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/599/2017

Varinder Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Gupta Adv. & Manjula Gupta Adv.

23 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	599 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	23.05.2018

 

Varinder Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Onkar Chand R/o 3133, The Ajanta Co-op House Building Society, Sector 51-D, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2. Account Officer-I, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. J. S. Sathi, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint	:	600 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	23.05.2018

 

Suresh Chand Gupta S/o Late Shri Jyoti Parshad Gupta R/o 2149-C, Block No.8, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2. Account Officer-I, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. J. S. Sathi, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

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

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

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid two consumer complaints bearing Nos.599 and 600 of 2017.

2.           At the time of arguments on 14.05.2018, it was agreed between the Counsel for the parties that facts involved in these complaints, by and large, are the same and therefore, these complaints could be disposed of by passing one consolidated order.

3.         Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.599 of 2017, titled as ‘Varinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr.’.

4.         In brief, the facts are that the Opposite Parties launched a scheme for the residents of U.T., Chandigarh for allotment of flats on 99 years leasehold basis in Sector 63, Chandigarh. The said scheme opened on 31.03.2008 and last date to apply in the said scheme was 30.04.2008. The total number of 2 Bed Room flats offered was 836. The complainant vide application  No.13318 applied for 2 Bed room flat by depositing Rs.2,91,405/- against the total price of Rs.29,14,051. He remained successful in preliminary draw held on 30.07.2008, and was also successful in the 2^nd draw of lots held on 10.11.2008 under general category. He was given registration No.GHS63-2BR-Gen-483 in the year 2009. The Opposite Parties revised the layout plan and proposed 6 storey flats, which further increased the number of 2 Bed room flats to 888. Draw for allotment of floors  was  held  on 07.04.2010 and the complainant was

allotted flat on 5^th floor. Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter (ACDL) was issued on 02.11.2011.

5.         It was further stated that there was no mention in the ACDL that parking area under stilt would be chargeable to the tune of Rs.1 Lac. It was further stated that in the brochure also, the amount of Rs.29,14,051 was inclusive of the cost of parking under basement as well. It was further stated that balance payment of Rs.26,22,646/- was required to be made as per the schedule given in ACDL. It was further stated that the amounts towards installments shown in ACDL were inclusive of interest @12% p.a.. It was further stated that the complainant deposited Rs.23,22,650/- on 26.11.2011 and the outstanding dues on 26.11.2011 remained Rs.2,99,996/-.

6.         It was further stated that on oral asking of the opposite parties and in order to save his allotment, the complainant also deposited Rs.5,67,400/- on 25.04.2013 on account of interest, taxes, escalation cost of construction charges and other charges etc., which was within 18 months of ACDL. It was further stated that the complainant was further shocked to see that in the allotment letter dated 13.10.2015, interest component charged was shown as Rs.2,67,358/- and service tax charged on total consideration was Rs.1,05,492/-. It was further stated that the consideration of the flat is not liable for service tax under Income Tax Act or Finance Act. It was further stated that the interest was required to be charged @12% p.a. on the remaining due amount of Rs.2,99,996/- from 26.11.2011 to 26.04.2013 (i.e. for 17 months), which comes out to be Rs.51,000/-, if any. However, the opposite parties had charged extra interest

from the complainant amounting to Rs.2,67,358/- minus Rs.51,000/- = Rs.2,16,358/- in an illegal manner. It was further stated that the complainant is entitled to refund of service tax of Rs.1,05,492/-  alongwith interest @12% p.a.  w.e.f. 23.10.2015. It was further stated that neither the above amount of Rs.1,05,492/- has been deposited by the opposite parties with the Taxation Department nor any receipt has been issued to the complainant in this regard.

7.         It was further stated that it was in draw held on 05.07.2015 that Flat No.2240-E was earmarked for the complainant and Parking No.B-11-CSL-543 was also allocated to the complainant for sale consideration of Rs.1 Lac. It was further stated that having no other option, the complainant opted for Rs.1 Lac car parking. It was reiterated that in the brochure as well as ACDL, there was no mention of paid parking or charge of Rs.50,000/- or Rs.1 lac for parking. It was further stated that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for not providing free parking in basement.

8.         It was further stated that the complainant got the possession of the flat, in question, on 19.11.2015 and found that POP work on the ceiling was not there, lifts were not working, roads were not constructed and electricity connection was also not there and even working and testing of fire fighting system was still under process.

9.         It was further state that the opposite parties did not initiate the steps to start construction within time bound manner and it was not the intention of the opposite parties to give possession within time and rather the opposite parties charged interest @12%, 18%, 24% and 30% on delayed payments. It was further stated that the opposite parties took payment from the complainant on 02.12.2011 and earned interest on the same from 02.12.2011 to 09.08.2015 without initiating construction work. The complainant gave legal notice dated 21.07.2016 to the opposite parties but to no avail.

10.       Alleging the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties to be deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on their part, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking following directions to the Opposite Parties:-

(i)             to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2 lacs for not providing possession without reasonable time and getting undue advantage over the funds paid by the complainant.

(ii)           to refund the penal interest of Rs.2,16,358/- charged from the complainant alongwith interest.

(iii)          to refund the amount of Rs.1,05,492/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties on 23.10.2015 as service tax, which was not levyable on flat, in question, alongwith interest.

(iv)           to compensate the complainant for loss of interest and earning of interest by the opposite parties on the amount of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,92,718/-.

(v)            to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1 lac for not providing free parking under basement.

(vi)           to pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

(vii)         to award exemplary cost to the complainant.

(viii)       To grant any other relief.

 

11.       The Opposite Parties filed reply wherein, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, they stated that the allotment was to be made on the basis of “Self Finance Scheme” where under every allottee was required to make 100% of payment of chargeable price of flat before he actually gets the possession of the flat. It was further stated that the complainant must realize, understand and consider various natural and unforeseen hindrances and circumstances, which take time in completing the project/construction work. The factum of the complainant becoming successful in draw of lots and issuance of registration number has been admitted by the opposite parties. It was stated that while intimating the results of draw held on 10.11.2008, it was also informed that as per the approved revised layout of the scheme, six storey flats (i.e. stilts plus five storey and ground plus five storey), would be constructed alongwith provision of lifts therein and as such, there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as projected by the complainant.

12.       It was further stated that parking fee was not mentioned in ACDL dated 02.11.2011 as well as in the brochure of the scheme. It was further stated that the complainant was legally estopped to rake up the parking issue having opted for bigger parking (for two cars) despite existence of option to go in for free regular parking (for one car) in the stilt and as such, his plea that he was constrained to apply for paid parking was patently misleading. Receipt of amounts of Rs.23,22,650/- and Rs.5,67,400/- on 29.11.2011 and 29.04.2013 in the Board’s Account has been admitted. It was denied that the opposite parties ever refused to provide possession of the flat, in question. It was further stated that in case of nonpayment of entire amount within 30 days, the amount deposited was to be treated as if paid in installments. It was further stated that in para 3 of ACDL, the amount of installments was calculated by incorporating interest @12% and the complainant is not entitled to refund of service tax.

13.       It was further stated that the service tax was charged in accordance with law and further the Service Tax Department has not given any such exemption of service tax. It was further stated that the opposite parties did not demand any undue amount from the complainant. It was admitted that the complainant was delivered possession of the unit, in question, on 19.11.2015. It was further stated that while taking over physical possession, the complainant duly certified that he took over the physical possession of electrical fittings, public health items and the building portion of the house alongwith all fittings and fixtures, of the house, complete in all respects as per the inventory list given in the booklet, handed over to him, to his entire satisfaction. It was further stated that the POP work was not done initially so that allottee would be able to complete the work of unfinished toilet. It was further stated that POP job was to be done in two rooms, which was completed. It was further stated that electricity connection was to be taken by the allottee from U.T. Electricity Department. It was further stated that installation of the fire fighting system was completed by 13.11.2015, however, the installation was fully commissioned on release of electricity connection, which was to be arranged by the Resident Welfare Association. As regards lifts, it was stated that the same were in working condition but were to be taken over by the Resident Welfare Association, which was requested vide EE-Elect. Letter No.6015 dated 13.11.2015.

14.       It was further stated that the opposite parties cannot be held liable for any delay so far as the complainant is concerned. It was further stated that there is no such condition in the brochure to compensate or adjust the interest on account of delay under such peculiar circumstances, which were beyond the control of CHB. It was further stated that as such, the interest component claimed by the complainant was indefensible and unjustified. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

15.       The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and controverted those, contained in written version of the Opposite Parties.          

16.       The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

17.       The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh, their Chief Accounts Officer, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

 

18.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

19.       Qua deficiency regarding non-provision of electricity pointed out by the complainant, no cogent evidence has been brought on record. The plea is also devoid of cogent reasoning in view of the fact that the electricity connection was to be taken by the complainant himself from the U.T. Electricity Department. The plea taken at this stage, is without any basis and as such, the same stands rejected.

20.             So far as the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1 Lac for not providing free parking under basement is concerned, it may be stated here that the opposite parties alongwith their reply have placed on record, as Annexure OP-4, option form given by the complainant for parking space. As per this form, the complainant at Sr. No.7 gave his order of preference, as per which, he opted for option (b) first i.e. bigger parking space under stilts for additional space for parking, for which, one time charge of Rs.1.00 Lac over and above the cost of house was to be given by the complainant. He placed the options (a) Parking space under stilt & (b) open parking space as 2^nd & 3^rd option. He also gave an undertaking that he would not change his option given and in case, the applicants were more than the available parking space, then he would agree to the decision by draw of lots and if found unsuccessful after the draw of lots, then he may be considered for subsequent preference. Luckily, the complainant became successful for the first option i.e. bigger parking space under stilts and was bound to pay one time charges of Rs.1 Lac for the said parking facility. As such, no deficiency is attributable to the Opposite Parties on this count.

21.       As regards grievance of the complainant for charging service tax in the sum of Rs.1,05,492/- is concerned, the Opposite Parties, in their written statement, have stated that the service tax was demanded as per provisions of Service Tax Act. It may be stated here that service tax, so realized, is paid to the Government. The above fact stands corroborated from the contents of letters dated 27.12.2013 and 05.03.2014 (Annexures OP-3 & OP-4), vide which, the opposite parties informed the Assistant Commissioner, (Service Tax Division), Chandigarh that the amounts of Rs.4,80,00,929/- each, on account of 50% service tax under VCES-2013 were deposited. The Opposite Parties, in their letter dated 05.09.2016 (Annexure C-11) to the complainant informed that Service Tax stood deposited and that Service Tax Department did not give any exemption through any law, notification or circular, after the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.  

22.           In so far as the claim of the complainant of Rs.2 Lacs for not providing possession by the opposite parties within the reasonable time and compensation for loss of interest in the sum of Rs.2,92,718/- is concerned, it may be stated here that the relief, sought by the complainant, is almost identical to the one sought by the complainant in case titled “Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Jarnail Singh”, First Appeal bearing No.333 of 2015 decided on 18.01.2016, wherein in Para 12 to 14, this Commission held as under:-

“12.      After looking into documents on record and also contents of an affidavit dated 06.01.2016 (said affidavit was filed in terms of order dated 11.12.2015 passed by this Commission) filed by Sh.Sunil Kumar, Chief Engineer of Chandigarh Housing Board, we are of the considered opinion that there was no inordinate delay in handing over possession of flat to the respondent. It was on account of various reasons, beyond the control of the appellants. Scheme was floated in the year 2008. The respondent paid an amount of Rs.3,95,745/- at that time. Draw of lots was conducted for allotment of flats, in the year 2010, whereafter, in five installments, amount was paid by the respondent, to the appellants, towards price of the flat. In the above said affidavit, it is stated that construction qua 120 flats was started on 01.09.2011. However, possession of entire project land could not be given, as such, possession of site for construction of 80 flats out of above 120 flats, was only given to the contractor, for construction. Qua second lot of 216 flats, construction was started on 11.11.2011. However, at site, possession of land to raise only 120 flats could be given. Qua construction of remaining flats, possession of land could not be given, on account of boundary dispute between the appellants and the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Mohali. It is necessary to note here that the project is situated adjoining boundary line, between U.T., Chandigarh and Punjab, Mohali. Due to above difficulty, lay out plan of the project land was revised on 14.06.2012. Location of original flats was changed and the land at site was made available to the contractor, in the month of June 2012. Construction of 214 3BR flats was completed in the month of April 2013. Construction qua other flats was completed in December 2013. The appellants then faced difficulty regarding disposal of sewerage and storm water discharge, in the existing location of project land, on account of topography of land, where the project, in question, was situated. The matter was taken up with the GMADA, Mohali, and sewerage connection was given to 984 no. of flats by it, on 31.03.2014, on payment of charges. Qua some of the flats, proposal was vetted on 15.09.2014. Completion of above work took some-time. To award separate contracts of water supply, water boosting system, sewerage system & storm water disposal system, electricity distribution system, street lighting system, roads etc, it also took some time to complete the project. Shortage of sand and bazri (crushed stones) was also one of the reasons for delay, in construction of flats. Process of handing over possession was started on 11.09.2015. Possession of flat was delivered to the respondent on 29.09.2015.

13.       Sequence of the events mentioned above, clearly indicates that the appellants were not deficient in providing service to the respondent. All out efforts were being made to construct the flats, and deliver possession within reasonable time. It is not an allegation of the respondent that on account of delay, he was made to pay higher price of the unit.  He was given possession of the flat, at the same rate, which was advertised in the year 2008. As per common knowledge, price of the flat, in the meantime has escalated and delay had gone to the benefit of respondent, and as such, he has suffered no loss.

14.      In the present case also, it could be safely said that time was not essence of the contract. Evidence on record clearly indicates that all attempts were made by the appellants, to complete the project, within reasonable time. It is so apparent from reading of the contents of the affidavit dated 06.01.2016, filed by Sh.Sunil Kumar, Chief Engineer of Chandigarh Housing Board (on the asking of this Commission). To the facts mentioned above, no contrary evidence has been produced on record, by the respondent…...”

            Same view was reiterated in this Commission judgment in case titled ‘Wing Commander (Retd.) Sumer Singh Savant Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board (supra), Consumer Complaint bearing No.196 of 2017 decided on 17.04.2018. In view of ratio of aforesaid judgments, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for.

23.       It may also be stated here that Acceptance-cum-Demand Letter (ACDL) was issued by the Opposite Parties to the complainant on 02.11.2011 giving specific schedule for payment. The ACDL did not state as to the period, by which, possession was to be offered. The complainant deposited all the installments. Making payment(s) in terms of ACDL dated 02.11.2011 means that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions stipulated therein. After taking possession in the year 2015, and after six years of issuance of ACDL, he cannot be allowed to say that there was delay. Admittedly, as per letter of possession dated 09.11.2015  (Annexure C-8), the complainant took physical possession of the flat. It is a fact that it was a self-financing scheme and the Opposite Parties handed over possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant at the price, which was indicated at the time of floating the scheme in the year 2008. Evidently, there was significant escalation in the prices during the intervening period of seven years, from 2008 to 2015. If the complainant was not agreeing to the terms and conditions of ACDL, he ought to have objected then and there. Once he complied with the terms of ACDL dated 02.11.2011, by making payments as per payment schedule, after taking over possession, it does not lie in his mouth to seek compensation.

24.       It is very clear that the complainant was given possession of the flat at the same rate, which was advertised in the year 2008. The complainant is, therefore, not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, on this count.

25.       The contention of the complainant in Para 18 of the complaint that allotment letter to him was issued 33 days to 43 days prior to some other allottees, on account of which, he made payment prior to other allottees does not merit consideration. Notwithstanding the fact that ACDLs were issued on different dates, the mode of payment and period for making payment by all the allottees was the same. When allotment letters were issued to around 888 allottees, issuing the same, on different dates, after gap of few days, in our opinion, did not cause any prejudice to the complainant. The plea, is therefore, not tenable and the same stands rejected.

26.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is whether the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.2,16,358/- charged as interest from him by the opposite parties.  As per ACDL dated 02.11.2011, as per Note (ii), in case, full payment  of the dwelling unit was made within 30 days from the date of issue of ACDL, no interest was to be charged. Full payment, which was required to be made in the instant case, was Rs.28,90,004/-. The complainant, however, within 30 days deposited Rs.23,22,650/- on 26.11.2011 (Annexure C-3), which meant that there was short fall of Rs.5,67,354/-, which included interest of Rs.2,67,358.00. The case of the complainant is that balance amount payable was Rs.2,99,996/- and interest of Rs.2,67,358/- was not payable whereas on enquiry from the Opposite Parties, he was made to pay Rs.5,67,354/- i.e. Rs.2,99,996.00 + Rs.2,67,358.00.

27.       ACDL dated 02.11.2011 indicated the following schedule of payment:-

Price in lacs	Amount
Due/payable within 30 days of the issue of Acceptance-cum-demand letter	Rs.437108
Ist instalment within 6 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.817632
IInd instalment within 12 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.817632
IIIrd intalment within  18 months from the date of ACD letter	Rs.817632
At the time of handing over the possession	100% of chargeable price minus price already paid

 

28.       It has been admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement that the total amount of Rs.28,90,004/- was inclusive of interest @12%.

29.       It was argued by the counsel for the complainant that when he made payment in the sum of Rs.23,22,650/- i.e. of Rs.4,37,108.00 and also first and second installments and part of 3^rd installment within 30 days, interest was payable on the shortfall amount in the sum of Rs.2,99,996/- and not on the entire amount but the complainant was asked to make payment of this amount + interest of Rs.2,67,358/- on 25.04.2013.

30.       Counsel for the opposite parties on 14.05.2018 placed on record a letter dated 12.03.2018 issued by Chandigarh Housing Board to justify the issue qua interest, in which, it has been stated that the defaulted amount of Rs.2,99,996/- being more than 1% of total lump-sum consideration money i.e. Rs.26,22,646/- is not covered under the decision of Board taken in its Agenda item No.382.4.2/meeting held on 24.01.2014. Admittedly, in this case, the defaulted amount, which was not paid by the complainant within 30 days, was only Rs.2,99,996/- whereas the entire balance amount, which otherwise was to be paid in installments in the sum of Rs.23,22,650/-, stood paid within 30 days of issuance of ACDL. Charging interest on the entire amount despite payment of major amount by the complainant, in one go, is highly harsh and beyond all parameters of reasonableness, fairness and principles of natural justice. This Commission in Wing Commander (Retd.) Sumer Singh Savant Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board’s case (supra), has held that the opposite parties could charge interest for the period of delay. The relevant part of Wing Commander (Retd.) Sumer Singh Savant Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board’s case (supra), is extracted hereunder:-

“33.      As per Condition No.5 of ACDL, the applicant is required to pay interest @18% for the 1st month; @21% for the 2nd month and @24% for the 3rd month. In the case of the complainant, there has been delay of a few days only. Condition No.5 does not stipulate that even for a delay of a few/couple of days, interest is to be paid for the entire month. No doubt, Clause 8 of ACDL stipulates that installment should be deposited in full along with interest at the prescribed rate, if any, due on account of delayed payment but it nowhere states that for any short amount, the interest shall be payable on the entire amount of installment.”

 

31.        Further, this Commission in Para 34 also held that as per ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case titled Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Nath Misra & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2011 decided on 03.01.2011, interest is payable for actual period of delay. Para 34, interalia, reads thus:-

“34……….Under above circumstances, when despite this exorbitant rate of interest, the Opposite Party instead of charging interest for actual period of delay, charged the same for a month and so on, the same clearly is highly unreasonable and amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party. The equities are required to be balanced by not enriching one party at the cost of other. As per ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case titled Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Nath Misra & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2011 decided on 03.01.2011, interest is payable for actual period of delay. Para 8 of the said judgment reads thus:-

“8. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and modify the order of the High Court as under :

(a) Having regard to the fact that the entire principal amount has been paid on 12.6.2007 and 12.12.2008, the first respondent shall pay interest at 13% per annum on Rs.15,24,490 from 1.7.2006 (due date) to 12.6.2007 (date of payment of Rs.5 lakhs) and interest at the rate of 13% per annum on Rs.10,24,490 from 13.6.2007 to 12.12.2008.”

 

            In view of above, the liability of the complainant was only to the extent that the opposite parties could charge interest @12% on Rs.2,99,996/- for a period of 17 months, the interest for which works out to Rs.51,000/-. Therefore, by charging interest of Rs.2,67,358/- as against Rs.51,000/-, the opposite parties indulged into unfair trade practice and were also deficient in rendering service. The complainant, is, thus entitled to refund of Rs.2,16,358/- (Rs.2,67,358.00 – Rs.51,000.00), alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 25.04.2013 i.e. date on which the complainant made the payment.

32.       In connected complaint bearing No.600 of 2017, the grievance of the complainant qua charging of excess interest in Para 7 of the complaint, is that the opposite parties charged interest of Rs.96,071/- whereas interest payable was Rs.65,124.54. In view of ratio of this Commission judgment in Wing Commander (Retd.) Sumer Singh Savant Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board’s case (supra), the complainant is held entitled to refund of Rs.30,947/- i.e. (Rs.96,071.00 – Rs.65,124.00) alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 20.05.2015 i.e. the date on which payment was made by the complainant.

33.       The complainants, in both the complaints, are also held entitled to compensation, for mental agony, physical harassment & deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties.

34.       The other reliefs sought by the complainant in complaint No.600 of 2017 are similar to the ones in complaint bearing No.599 of 2017, and as discussed and held above, the complainant is not entitled to the same.

35.       No other point was argued by the Counsel for the parties.

36.           Accordingly, both the complaints bearing No.599 and 600 of 2017 are partly accepted with costs. The Opposite Parties, in each of these cases are, jointly and severally, held entitled and directed as under:-

                     i.     To refund the amounts of Rs.2,16,358/- (in CC/599/2017) & Rs.30,947/- (in CC/600/2017)  alongwith simple interest @12% per annum, to the complainant(s), from 25.04.2013 & 20.05.2015 respectively, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amouvnt alongwith simple interest @15% per annum, instead of 12% per annum, from the date of default, till actual payment;

                    ii.     To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (in CC/599/2017) & Rs.10,000/- (in CC/600/2017) to the complainant(s), as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and physical harassment, and litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-, in each case, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint(s) till actual payment.

37.       Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of consumer complaint bearing No.600 of 2017.

38.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

39.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

23.05.2018

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Ad