Punjab

StateCommission

CC/1001/2018

Dr. Mudit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMAAR MGF Land Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Khunger

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No.1001 of 2018                                                      

Date of institution  :    20.12.2018  

Date of decision     :    08.04.2019

 

1.      Dr. Mudit Kumar son of Sh. Surendra Sahai Srivastava;

2.      Dr. Monika Schadeva wife of Dr. Mudit Kumar;

          Both residents of H.No.1104, LYRA Block, Taj Towers, Sector         104, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

….Complainants

Versus

1.      EMAAR India (formerly known as EMAAR MGF Land Limited)          having its Registered Office at ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi    Marg, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Authorized       Officer.

          E-mail:feedback@emaar-india.com

 

2.      Sh. Hadi Mohd. Taher Badri, Managing Director, EMAAR Having     Site Office-Mohali Hills, Office No.40, Central Plaza, Sector 105,      Mohali.

          E-mail:feedback@emaar-india.com

 

3.      Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, through its Chief Administrator.

          E-mail:eo@gmada.gov.in

 

                                                                                    .…Opposite Parties

 

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

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

                        Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.

Present:-

    For the complainants      :  Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate

    For OPs No.1 & 2             :  Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for

                                                    Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate

    For OP No.3                      :  Sh. Anju Kohli, Advocate.        

   

JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,  PRESIDENT :

 

Misc. Application No.2838 of 2018

                   The complainants, being joint allottees of the plot, in question, the application is allowed.

Main Complaint

                    The complainants, who are husband and wife, have filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

a)      to provide the promised facilities as per FDI guidelines issued by     Ministry of Commerce & Industry and to construct 100 ft. wide         roads abutting both sides of the plot, as shown in the site plan          supplied to the complainants at the time of purchasing the plot      and thereafter to issue fresh letter of offer of possession.

          OR

          to allot an alternative plot in the same Sector with double PLC          i.e. corner plot with both sides of 100 ft. wide road;

b)      to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the promised        date of delivery of possession till handing over of actual physical        possession, along with promised facilities and proper road        connectivity as per FDI guidelines;

c)      to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/-, on account of mental agony    and harassment suffered by the complainants due to deficiency    in service on the part of the opposite parties; and

d)      to pay ₹55,000/- towards cost of litigation, documentation        charges, representation and numerous visits.

e)      to pay costs of the complaint.

f)       It has also been prayed that any other relief, to which the         complainants may be found entitled to in view of the facts and   circumstances of the case, be also granted.

Facts of the Complaint

2.           Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainants are doctors by profession and they were looking for a residential plot for constructing a house for their residence. Being impressed by the tall claims made by opposite parties No.1 & 2 regarding their project “Mohali Hills” to be a landmark lifestyle destination, they visited their office. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 informed that they were not left with plots with double preferential location (road on two sides) and that a plot was booked by one Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan, who unfortunately died and his nominee/son, Vicky Trehan, was ready to sell the same. Accordingly, they arranged a meeting between the complainants and said Vicky Trehan and on visiting the site, they found that plot No.211, measuring 300 sq.yds. was a corner plot in Sector 105 and was having double preferential location i.e. 100 ft. wide road on two sides. In the site plan shown to the complainants, the said plot was shown in red colour. The complainants agreed to purchase the said plot and the total sale consideration paid by Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan was paid by the complainants to his son and accordingly, an endorsement was made by opposite parties No.1 & 2 on the provisional allotment letter dated 09.04.2007 as well as on Buyer’s Agreement dated 04.07.2007 and receipts. In this way, the complainants stepped into the shoes of the original allottee of that plot, with respect to rights and liabilities thereof. As per terms and conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement, possession of the plot was to be delivered within two years, but not later than three years from the date of execution thereof. However, they failed to deliver possession of the said plot within that period. On visiting the site, the complainants found that there was no progress at the spot, nor the requisite facilities were provided, nor 100 ft. roads abutting the plot were constructed. Thereafter, the complainants sent e-mails dated 10.03.2011 and 16.03.2011 to opposite parties No.1 & 2, raising the issue of delay in development of the plot and it was further mentioned therein that they came to know that a part of the area was owned by another Company namely Puma Realtors (IREO). Request for delivery of possession was also made therein. Opposite parties No.1 & 2, vide letter dated 19.11.2016, admitted the visit of the complainants and assured to deliver possession on or before 30.09.2011.  Even thereafter, the possession was not delivered and various e-mails were exchanged between the parties. When the complainants brought to their notice that there were no roads abutting the plot, opposite parties No.1 & 2 offered alternative plot, vide e-mail dated 29.12.2012. Since the said offered plot was not a corner plot, so they requested opposite parties No.1 & 2 to offer alternative plot of similar location having roads on two sides, but to no effect.  Seeing no hope to get possession of the plot, the complainants were forced to purchase a flat in ‘Taj Towers’, Mohali, for their shelter, in June, 2016. Ultimately, vide e-mail dated 28.10.2016, possession of plot No.211 was offered and vide e-mail dated 19.11.2016, the complainants were served with a Statement of Account as on 19.11.2016, in which the cost of the plot was unilaterally enhanced from ₹44,27,394/- to ₹57,70,606/-, on the ground of enhancement of area thereof. Thereafter, the complainants again visited the site and found that there was no road connectivity to the plot, in question, nor there was any development and that the offer of possession was only a paper transaction. Therefore, vide letter dated 20.11.2016, the complainants pointed out to opposite party No.1 that preferential location charges (PLC) were paid by them, but still the possession was offered with incomplete development and without road connectivity. They also sent e-mails dated 20.11.2016 and reminders dated 01.12.2016, 03.12.2016, 26.01.2017 and 17.07.2018, but to no effect. However, on 29.09.2018, opposite parties No.1 & 2 sent an e-mail, raising an illegal demand of common area maintenance charges of ₹44,131/-, but there was no mention of the grievances raised by the complainants. The complainants, along with e-mail dated 04.10.2018, annexed photographs of the plot, showing a pond like situation and controverted their demand of maintenance charges. The complainants further sent e-mail dated 24.10.2018, raising their grievances and calling upon opposite parties No.1 & 2 to compensate them. Thereafter also, various e-mails were exchanged between the parties. Later on, the complainants obtained copy of approved site plan from GMADA under RTI Act, from which it came to light that there was no direct road connectivity to the said plot and even the part of the land shown in yellow colour is not owned by opposite parties No.1 & 2. Thus, side road of 100 feet is not possible to be carved out till the entire area is acquired by them.  Thereafter, the complainants visited the site on 09.12.2018 and clicked photographs, which show non-development of the plot. The complainants got sanctioned a loan of ₹40,00,000/- from LIC Housing Finance, Chandigarh, out of which an amount of ₹33,29,178/- was disbursed. Against that loan, a sum of ₹29,15,594.58 was paid by them as interest to said Finance Company. For delay in delivery of possession, only compensation at the rate of ₹50/- per sq.yd./sq.meter per month has been mentioned in the agreement, whereas for delay in paying instalments, interest at the rate of 15% per annum, compounded at the time of every succeeding instalment, is being charged on the due amount. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not obtained Completion Certificate from the competent authority and in collusion with opposite party No.3, they have obtained only Partial Completion Certificate from it. As per FDI guidelines issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, at least 50% of the project is required to be developed within a period of 5 years from the date of obtaining all statutory clearances and that the Company would not be permitted to sell the undeveloped plots, i.e. where roads, water supply, street-lighting, drainage, sewerage and other conveniences as applicable under prescribed regulations are not made available. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, as a result of which the complainants suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

Defence of the Opposite Parties

3.           Upon notice, Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate appeared on 20.02.2019, but he did not file any power of attorney, stating at bar that moratorium proceedings were going on and, as such, he was not authorized to appear on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. However, in the interest of justice, one opportunity was granted to opposite  parties No.1 & 2 to file reply with the registry within 15 days and the case was adjourned to 11.03.2019. On 11.03.2019, neither anybody appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2, nor reply was filed and, as such, their defence was struck off, vide order dated 11.03.2019. However, opposite party No.3 filed its reply to the complaint.  
4.           Opposite party No.3, in its reply, raised preliminary objections that the dispute in this complaint is the inter-se dispute between the complainants and opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 has no role to play therein and, as such, it has been unnecessarily dragged into avoidable litigation.  It was pleaded that a Public Grievance Redressal Committee has been constituted by the Government of Punjab, vide Order No.9/90/2012-5HG2/4151 dated 14.09.2012, to settle the disputes of public/allottees with the developers/promoters and the said committee is empowered to recommend the action to be taken against the promoters of the projects. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3. No amount whatsoever has been charged by it from the complainants. As such, there is no consumer dispute between it and the complainants. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainants must have received RTI information from the concerned department i.e. Chief Town Planner, Punjab, who is the competent authority for passing/sanctioning/approving the plans of Mega Projects.  Mega Housing projects have been granted exemption from operation of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. A notification dated 02.09.2014 had been issued regarding issuance of Partial Completion Certificate as well as Completion Certificate. Accordingly, vide letter No.3621 dated 16.10.2015, Partial Completion Certificate for the area, measuring 310.139 acres has been issued to opposite party No.1, subject to compliance of certain conditions. Other allegations contained in the complaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the complaint against opposite party No.3 be dismissed.
5.           Rejoinder, by way of affidavit of Dr. Mudit Kumar, complainant No.1, to the reply filed by opposite party No.3 was filed, in which averments of the complaint were reiterated and pleadings of the reply filed by opposite party No.3 were controverted.

Evidence of the Parties

6.           To prove their claim, the complainants, along with the complaint, filed self attested affidavit of complainant No.1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26 and Annexures C-27 and C-28 with the rejoinder.
7.           Opposite party No.3, along with its reply, filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Bawa, Senior Town Planner (Licensing) and documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.

Contentions of the Parties

8.           We have heard learned counsel for the complainants and opposite party No.3, as the defence of opposite parties No.1 & 2 was struck off. We have also gone through the record carefully. We have also perused the written submissions of the complainants.
9.           Learned counsel for the complainants, in addition to the brief written submissions, has vehemently contended that opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period despite receipt of substantial amount from the complainants towards the price thereof. No development activity was started at the site and they kept on utilizing the hard earned money of the complainants, for their own cause. It has been further contended that opposite parties No.1 & 2 have also not obtained the requisite approvals and permissions from the competent authorities before launching their project, which amounts to violation of various provisions of PAPRA. It has been further contended that the complainants obtained loan from LIC Housing Finance Company for making payment of instalments towards the price of unit to opposite parties No.1 & 2. They offered the possession only, vide letter dated 28.10.2016, Ex.C-14, but without obtaining the Completion Certificate from GMADA. As per terms of the agreement, penalty of ₹50/- per sq.yd. per month is payable, which comes to only 4.22% of the toal amount deposited by the complainants; whereas the complainants are paying interest ranging from 9% to 11% to the Finance Company on the loan amount. Thus, the terms of the agreement, being one-sided, the complainants are entitled to 10% simple interest on the amount paid by them, along with all other reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainants, in support of his contentions, relied upon judgment dated 02.04.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Ranghavan Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018.
10.           Learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has contended that there is no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the complainants and opposite party No.3 and no amount was ever charged by it from them. The dispute is only between them and opposite parties No.1 & 2. The Partial Completion Certificate was issued in favour of opposite parties No.1 & 2, as per rules and regulations and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3. The complaint against it is liable to be dismissed.

Consideration of Contentions

11.            We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the contesting parties.
12.           Undisputedly, plot No.211, measuring 300 sq.yds. (approximately) in Central Greens, Sector 105, at the rate of ₹11,500/- per sq.yd., preferential location charges (PLC) of ₹7,76,250/- being corner plot and facing major road and External Development Charges (EDC) of ₹671/- per sq.yd, amounting to ₹2,01,144/-; for a total consideration of ₹44,27,394/-, was allotted to Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan, vide provisional allotment letter dated 09.04.2007, Ex.C-4. Plot Buyer’s Agreement (in short, “agreement”), Ex.C-5, was duly executed between him and opposite parties No.1 & 2. After the death of Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan, his nominee/son Sh. Vicky Trehan sold the same to the complainants. The amount paid by Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan was paid by the complainants to Sh. Vicky Trehan and the opposite parties duly endorsed the said plot in favour of the complainants, as per endorsements made on the provisional allotment letter, Ex.C-4, and agreement, Ex.C-5. As per receipts, Ex.C-6 (colly.), Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan had deposited a total sum of ₹43,31,572/- with opposite parties No.1 & 2 towards the price of the said plot. The making of endorsements on the agreement and the receipts in favour of the complainants prove that the same amount was paid by them to Sh. Vicky Trehan son of Sh. Kulbhushan Trehan. The complainants visited the site and found that there was no progress at the spot, nor the requisite facilities were provided. Thereafter, the complainants sent e-mails dated 10.03.2011 and 16.03.2011, Ex.C-7, to opposite parties No.1 & 2, raising the issue of delay in delivery of possession. It was further mentioned therein that they came to know that a part of the area of said project was owned by another Company namely Puma Realtors (IREO). Opposite parties No.1 & 2 admitted delay in delivery of possession and committed to deliver possession on or before 30.09.2011 and to pay penalty for such delay, vide e-mail dated 27.04.2011, Ex.C-8.  Large amount of correspondence through e-mails kept on exchanging between the parties, but the possession was not delivered. However, the possession date was further extended up till 31.10.2012 but not later than 15.11.2012 by opposite parties No.1 & 2, vide e-mail dated 06.08.2012, Ex.C-9 (colly.), stating that they were trying to expedite the completion of basic amenities of the plot, in question. However, no action was taken by them in this regard. Ultimately, vide e-mail dated 29.12.2012, Ex.C-10, opposite parties No.1 & 2 offered relocation of plot to unit No.105-CP-292-300 (PLC unit on account of major road facing) in Sector 105. Along with the said e-mail, they attached the layout plan, Ex.C-11, for reference. However, complainant No.1 sent e-mail dated 07.12.2013, Ex.C-12 (colly.), raising the issue of double PLC and single PLC, as the alternative plot offered was not a corner plot. He also enquired about the status of plot No.211. Ultimately, opposite parties No.1 & 2 offered possession of plot No.105-CG-211-300, stating that on final measurement, area of said plot stood revised to 321.27 sq.mtrs. (384.24 sq.yds.) from earlier area of 250.84 sq.mtr. (300 sq.yds.). Accordingly, the price thereof was also revised to ₹64,48,047/-. A demand of EDC of ₹1,08,937/- was also raised. It was also mentioned therein that temporary electricity and water connection have already been sanctioned for the project and that on taking possession, the complainants could commence construction. They also sent Statement of Account as on 19.11.2016, along with e-mail dated 19.11.2016, Ex.C-15. No doubt, Partial Completion Certificate dated 16.10.2015, Annexure C-27, was issued to opposite parties No.1 & 2, but the same was issued subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions. As the defence of opposite parties No.1 & 2 was struck off, so there is no evidence on record to prove that they have complied with those terms and conditions, in letter and spirit. However, no Completion Certificate, as envisaged under Section 14 of PAPRA, was issued to them; in the absence which, the complete, actual and physical possession of the plot cannot be delivered. The complainants immediately sent letter dated 20.11.2016, Ex.C-16 to them, stating that on visiting the site, the layout of Sector 105 was found different than the projected one at the time of sale of the plot to them. They requested opposite parties No.1 & 2 to recall the offer of possession and to provide the completed roads (particularly central drive) and access points. They also sent various e-mails, Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-19, to them in this regard. However, vide e-mail dated 29.11.2018, Ex.C-20, the Community and Facility Management Services of opposite parties No.1 & 2  raised demand of ₹44,131/- towards Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges. The complainants, along with e-mail dated 04.10.2018, Ex.C-21 (colly.) annexed photograph of the plot, showing a pond like situation and controverted their demand of maintenance charges. The maintenance charges can be demanded from the complainants only after delivery of physical possession of the plot, with Completion Certificate and not before that. Therefore, the said demand of CAM charges opposite parties No.1 & 2 was premature.
13.           The complainants alleged that as per site plan, Ex.C-3, shown to them by the opposite parties at the time of sale of the plot No.211, the same was situated on 100 wide roads on two sides. As already discussed above, the complainant is a subsequent allottee of the said plot and not the original allottee.  A bare perusal of site plan, Ex.C-3, does not reveal that plot No.211 is situated on 100 feet wide roads. However, it is shown as a corner plot. In fact, 100 feet wide road shown in this site plan is Sector road, connecting Sectors 105 and 98; which is an external road and not internal. Even the approved site plan, Ex.C-25, does not show location of plot no.211 on 100 feet wide roads. Moreover, site plans Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-25, which is of same Sector-105, show that plot No.211 is situated on 36 feet wide road and not on 100 feet wide roads on two sides. The PLC were taken by opposite parties No.1 & 2 from the complainant for corner plot facing road and there is no stipulation in any document that the PLC were taken for providing 100 feet wide roads on two side of plot No.211. Even there is no stipulation in the agreement, Ex.C-5, regarding the plot having 100 feet wide roads on two sides. Therefore, the claim of the complainants regarding location of plot No.211 on 100 feet wide roads on two sides is baseless.
14.           The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted.  At the sake of repetition, it is relevant to mention that in the present case, opposite party No.1 & 2 failed to file their reply to the complaint, despite availing sufficient number of opportunities and, as such, their defence was struck off, vide order dated 11.03.2019. Therefore, all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by opposite parties No.1 & 2 as well as the evidence led by the complainants has remained unrebutted; for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against opposite parties No.1 & 2. It is, therefore, held that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in rendering service to the complainants. There is no evidence on record, whether opposite parties No.1 & 2 have obtained the requisite approvals and permissions from the competent authorities, before launching their project.
15.           As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony, but they failed to produce on record any such permission. So, they violated Section 5 of PAPRA.

16.              As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land.  They were also required to give inspection on seven days’ notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

17.              As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by opposite parties No.1 & 2 to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, they also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

18.           The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainants have made payment of substantial amount to opposite parties No.1 & 2, with the hope to get the possession of the plot within a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that opposite parties No.1 & 2 made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of land and development thereof within a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession.  The act and conduct of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in injury and loss of opportunity to the complainants. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that opposite parties No.1 & 2, i.e. builder, knew from the very beginning that it had not complied with various provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period and, thus, by misrepresentation induced the complainants to book the plot, due to which the complainants have suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainants for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainants have to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainants were at loss of opportunities. Thus, the complainants are entitled to the actual and physical possession of the developed plot, in question, complete in all respects, along with Completion Certificate and in case, the same is not possible, then for alternative corner plot of the same size and specifications in the same sector, subject to payment of balance sale consideration by the complainants, if any. Besides this, they are also entitled to compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the plot, as well as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them.
19.           Learned counsel for the complainants, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govindan Raghavan’s case (supra), contended that instead of penalty at the rate of 50/- per sq.yd., the complainants should be awarded simple interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 10% per annum for delay in delivery of possession. With due respect to the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case, it is relevant to mention that in that case, the refund of the deposited amount was sought and allowed with interest; whereas in the present case, possession of the plot has been sought. Therefore, the facts of both the cases are different and the ratio of that case is not applicable to the present case. As per Clause-8 of the agreement, Ex.C-5, the Company was to endeavour to deliver possession of the plot to the allottees within a period of 2 years from the date of execution of the agreement, but not later than 3  years, subject to force majeure circumstances; failing which penalty at the rate of ₹50/- per sq.yd. per month for the period of such delay beyond three years was payable to the complainants. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the said stipulated period, despite receipt of huge amount towards the price thereof. Thus, the opposite parties are liable to pay penalty of Rs.50/- per sq.yd. per month along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from  04.07.2010 (after three years from the execution of the agreement Ex.C-5) till delivery of actual and physical possession of the plot, in question, as per Clause-8 of the agreement, as ordered above. 

20.           So far as the complaint filed against opposite party No.3 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that there is no deficiency in service on its part, nor any specific allegation or relief has been levelled/prayed against it. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it. 
21.           In view of our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.3. Following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 & 2:

i)        to deliver the actual and physical possession of the developed        plot, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed      facilities and Completion Certificate issued by the competent       authority;

          OR In the Alternative:

          to allot some other corner plot of the same size and        specifications in the same Sector;

          subject to payment of remaining sale consideration by the       complainants, if any, without any interest/penalty.

ii)       to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession in the         form of penalty of Rs.50/- per sq.yd. per month along with           interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 04.07.2010 (after three      years from the execution of the agreement Ex.C-5) till delivery of actual and physical possession of the plot, in question, as           ordered above;

iii)      to pay ₹50,000/- as compensation on account of the mental   agony and harassment suffered by the complainants, including       litigation expenses. The remaining sale consideration payable by       the complainants, if any, shall be adjusted from the above said    liability of opposite parties No.1 & 2.

22.           The compliance of this order shall be made by opposite parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.

 

                                        (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)

                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                (KIRAN SIBAL)

                                                                      MEMBER        

April 08, 2019.                                             

(Gurmeet S)