Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/2/2020

Ruchi Singal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emaar MGF Land Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Khunger, Nitika Jaura & Ramneek Kaur Sandhu Adv.

05 May 2021

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	02 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	05.05.2021

 

Ruchi Singal W/o Mr.Manav Singal, resident of H.No.3380, 1^st Floor, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Emaar MGF Land Ltd., having its Corporate Office at SCO No.120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, presently having site office at Mohali Hills, Office No.40, Central Plaza, Sector-105, Mohali through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer.
2.  
2. Shri Hadi Mohd Taher Badri, Managing Director EMAAR Registered Office at ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
3.  
3. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Chief Administrator.
4.  

….Opposite Parties

BEFORE:       JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                      MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                      MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Present through Video Conferencing:     

                      Sh.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the complainant.

None for opposite party no.1

Opposite party no.2 exparte vide order dated 24.02.2020

Sh.Anuj Kohli, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The above captioned complaint has been instituted by the complainant seeking directions to opposite parties no.1 and 2, to refund the amount of Rs.53,51,386/- paid by her towards purchase of a plot bearing no.109-MLU-229-300, in the project named Mohali Hills, Sector 109, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab; pay compensation for mental agony & harassment and also litigation expenses. It is the case of the complainant that provisional allotment in respect of plot in question was issued in her favour, vide letter dated 29.04.2015, Annexure C-3 and as per Clause 8 (a) of the agreement dated 08.05.2015, Annexure C-4, possession thereof was committed to be delivered within a period of 24 months (18 months plus 6 months) i.e. latest by 07.05.2017, yet, they failed to do so. It has been stated that on the other hand, vide letter dated 18.09.2017, Annexure C-6, when intimation regarding possession of the plot was given to the complainant, it was found that it was mere a paper possession because the same was issued in the absence of development works and basic amenities. When the complainant raised her grievance in the matter, she was given offer of relocation to another plot in sector 105 or 104, yet, the same was also not provided to her. It has been averred that even the entries of the project in question were found sealed by the Forest Department, as opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to take necessary approvals/sanctions from the competent authorities. Under those circumstances, when the complainant served legal notice dated 05.10.2019, Annexure C-12 upon the opposite parties no.1 and 2, seeking refund of amount paid, the same went unanswered. Hence this complaint.  

2.           Her claim has been contested by opposite party no.1 on numerous grounds, inter alia, that the complainant being speculator did not fall within the definition of “consumer”; that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction; that the complaint filed is barred by time; that because the proceedings before this Commission are summary in nature, as such, the dispute be referred to an arbitrator as per terms and conditions of the agreement; that since the agreement contained a penalty clause for delay in offering possession of the plot and also no definite period was given for delivering possession, as such, time was not the essence of contract; that this complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of parties; that in case the complainant is still interested in refund of amount paid, forfeiture clause will be made applicable; that all permissions/sanctions have been obtained by opposite party no.1 in respect of the project in question; that possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 18.09.2017 followed by indemnity-cum-undertaking dated 27.10.2017 for execution of sale deed, yet she failed to take necessary steps in the matter; that partial completion certificate dated 16.10.2015 in respect of the project in  question has also been obtained by opposite party no.1 from the competent authorities; that she wanted to upgrade her plot with a plot in sector 105 or 104 in the same locality which was refused by opposite party no.1 on account of non-availability thereof.
3.           On merits, the facts with regard to purchase of plot in question; payments made by the complainant; execution of agreement; and that actual physical possession of the plot in question has not been handed over to her,  have not been disputed by opposite party no.1.  It has been averred that an amount of Rs.9,66,082/-, towards delayed compensation for the period of delay in offering possession and also rebate, has also been accepted by the complainant.
4.           It has been stated that as far as sealing of entry to the project is concerned because the Forest Department had served notice upon the company  that illegal access had been created through the Forest Strip, as such, the company vide letter dated 15.04.2015 had requested the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)/opposite party no.3 to take up the matter with the Forest Department for grant of permission to access Kharar- Banur-Tepla road, in order to provide connectivity to the project of the opposite parties; that the Forest Department has given its ‘No Objection’, vide letter dated 16.01.2018.
5.           Opposite party no.3 in its written statement averred that the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer; that this Commission did not have pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint; that requisite court fees has not been paid by the complainant; that partial completion in respect of the project in question has been issued after site inspection; that opposite parties no.1 and 2 were required to comply with the terms and conditions of the partial completion certificate; that completion certificate in respect of the project in question has not been issued to the company, as it has not applied for the same;  that since there is no dispute between the complainant and opposite party no.3 as such, complaint against it be dismissed.
6.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in the written reply filed by opposite parties no.1 and 3. 
7.           Since none put in appearance on behalf of  opposite party no.2, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.02.2020.
8.           This Commission has afforded adequate opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, by way of filing affidavit. In pursuance thereof, they have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and also produced numerous documents including written arguments by the complainant and opposite parties no.1 and 3.  
9.           The first question which needs consideration is with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, it may be stated here that if the total value of the plot in dispute i.e. Rs.62,42,100/- plus other reliefs claimed i.e. interest on the deposited amount and compensation for mental agony and harassment, are clubbed together, the same exceeds Rs.20 lacs and fell below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint, as per CPA 1986, under which this complaint has been filed. Thus, the objection taken in this regard, stands rejected.
10.           Now coming to the objection raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, it may be stated here that it is settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the Court/Tribunal/Fora within the territorial limits of which that occurs. In the present case, following documents reveal that the same have been issued by opposite parties no.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant, from their Office located at SCO 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, meaning thereby that they were actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on their business, from their  office at Chandigarh and personally work for gain thereat:-
    1. Provisional allotment letter dated 29.04.2015, Annexure C-3;
    2. Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2015, Annexure C-4; and
    3. Partial Completion Certificate dated 16.10.2015 has also been issued by GMADA/opposite party no.3 in respect of opposite parties no.1 and 2 at SCO 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

 

It is therefore held that since numerous cause of action accrued to the complainant at SCO 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, as such, this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Objection taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 in this regard is rejected. 

11.           As far as objection taken to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such the onus shifts to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to establish that the complainant has purchased the plot in question to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of plots’ as was held by the Hon’ble National  Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but since they failed to discharge their  onus, hence we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Act. Mere fact that the complainant is residing in a house at Panchkula or Chandigarh or any other house, cannot be made a ground to shove her out of the purview of consumer. Objection taken in this regard is therefore rejected.
12.           Since the facts narrated by the complainant, with regard to purchase of plot aforesaid, in the manner explained above; execution of agreement; and payments made by her are not in dispute, as such, the moot question which needs to be adjudicated is, as to whether, possession of the said plot was ever offered to her by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and that letters dated 18.09.2017 and 20.11.2017 could be said to be actual legal offer of possession?.                   

                   In order to strengthen his case, Counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that the offer so made by opposite parties no.1 and 2, vide letters dated 18.09.2017 and 20.11.2017 was nothing but a paper possession, as neither basic amenities were provided at the project at the relevant time and also the entries of the project in question were found to be sealed by the Forest Department, as opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to take necessary approvals. To further strengthen his case, Counsel for the complainant also placed reliance on photographs (Annexure C-16 colly.) of the project site and also the surroundings of location of the plot in question.

                   On the other hand, in order to wriggle out of the situation, opposite party no.1 while placing heavy reliance on partial completion certificate dated 16.10.2015, which infact has been placed on record by the complainant only, submitted that development activities and basic amenities had been provided at the project site and that was why possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant vide letters dated 18.09.2017 and 20.11.2017. We do not agree with the submissions made for the reasons recorded hereinafter.

13.           Admittedly, in the present case, the plot in question had been booked by the complainant on 29.04.2015 and she was provisionally allotted the same vide letter dated 29.04.2015, Annexure C-3. Agreement in respect of the said plot was executed between the parties on 08.05.2015, whereby, as per condition no.8 (a) thereof possession was to be delivered latest by 07.05.2017. It is significant to mention here that this Commission, in the first instance only, smacked apprehension out of the submissions made by opposite party no.1 regarding the said partial completion certificate dated 16.10.2015 because it cannot be assumed even that opposite parties no.1 and 2 had completed the development works at the project site wherein the plot in question is located within a period of 5 months, instead of 24 months i.e. 19 months earlier to the committed date and it also cannot be further assumed that within those 5 months only, after completing the development works/basic amenities, they had applied to the GMADA/opposite party no.3 for site inspection for issuance of partial completion certificate and thereafter, site inspection was also carried out by the GMADA/opposite party no.3 at jet speed and within those 5 months period only, partial completion certificate was issued in favour of the company on 16.10.2015.

                   However, the apprehension of this Commission was put at rest by the complainant, when she placed on record site plan Annexure C-21 of the project in question, wherein the plot in question is also located.  Since the said site plan was very compressive, as such, in order to facilitate this Commission, the complainant also placed on record the enlarged photocopy, Annexure C-22  of the relevant area out of the said site plan. From the said site plan, it is clearly depicting as to in which area of the project, development work has been completed and basic amenities have been provided and also as to in which area, the said development work and basic amenities are pending to be provided. The area where the development work and basic amenities are completed has been shown in blue colour (310.14 acres) in the said site plan and rest of the incomplete area is shown in brown colour (297.286 acres). It is further evident from the said site plan that the plot in question falls under the area, which has been shown in brown colour i.e. the area which is still to be developed. Thus, the complainant has proved her case that the plot in question did not fall under the area, for which partial completion certificate dated 16.10.2015 has been issued in favour of opposite parties no.1 and 2. At the same time, opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to place on record any convincing and cogent evidence to challenge the said site plan. It is therefore held that reliance placed by opposite party no.1 on the partial completion certificate dated 16.10.2015, to say that valid possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant vide the letters aforesaid is misplaced and is accordingly rejected.

                   Not only as above, there is another reason with this Commission to believe that opposite parties no.1 and 2 were not even in a position to offer and deliver possession of the plot in question to the complainant by the year 2017 or even thereafter. The said reason is the candid admission made by opposite party no.1, in its written statement to the effect that “…..the Forest Department served notice on the OP Company alleging that illegal access had been created through the Forest Strip….”.  The fact regarding sealing of entries of the said project is further corroborated from the letter dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure OP-8), placed on record by opposite party no.1 only, sent to the Chief Administrator, GMADA, requesting him to take up the matter with the Forest Department, regarding sealing of entry points of the project, in question, as the same had been stated to be “illegal access”. It has been clearly mentioned by the opposite parties no.1 and 2, in the said letter that “……. we are bound by the agreement to give delivery within time bound manner to our various restive customers, we had applied for grant of access with your good self”. It is also coming out from the record placed by opposite party no.1 itself that vide letter dated 08.01.2018, the company sought permission for access through the road in dispute, as a result whereof, it was only vide letter dated 16.01.2018, Annexure OP-6 that permission was ultimately granted to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 w.r.t. diversion of 0.010 ha. of forest land for construction of approach road to Sector 109. Thus, from the contents of letter dated 16.01.2018 aforesaid, it is proved that till January 2018, opposite parties no.1 and 2 were not in possession of land, to have an approach road to the sector in dispute, and, as such, could not have offered and delivered possession of the units/plots in the said sector. The candid admission of opposite party no.1 leaves no doubt to believe that the company had launched the project in question without obtaining necessary permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities especially from the Forest Department.

14.           The aforesaid findings given by this Commission to the effect that opposite parties no.1 and 2 were not competent to launch and develop the project during the breathing time of the agreement dated 08.05.2015 also find support from the candid admission made by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 namely Sh. Aditya Narain, Advocate, in respect of the same very project, before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as  Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Vs. Mandeep Saini, First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 (14 Sep 2016), to the effect that the delay in delivery of possession of the units in Sectors 104, 106, 108 and 109 is directly attributed to the sealing of the main access road to these Sectors by the Forest Department. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the Complainants on the question of interim stay. 

It is vehemently argued by Mr.Aditya Narain, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that since the delay in delivery of possession of the flats in Sectors 104, 106, 108 and 109 is directly attributed to the sealing of the main access road to these Sectors by the Forest Department, one of the factors which weighed with the State Commission, falls within the ambit of force majeure clause in the agreement, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in its alleged failure to deliver the possession of the subject flats in question by the committed time.  He thus prays that ex parte ad interim stay may to be continued. 

Prima facie, we are not convinced with the submission.  Hence, without expressing final opinion on the issue but having regard to the fact that the sealing orders have not yet been revoked and the Appellant is still not in a position to deliver possession of the fully developed flats with proper access, to the Complainants, we direct that the Appellant shall deposit in this Commission the principal amount(s) deposited by the Complainants with them, within 6 weeks from today.  On deposit of the said amount(s), it will be open to the Complainants to withdraw the said amount, on filing affidavits, undertaking to this Commission that they will refund the amount(s) withdrawn, if so directed at the time of final disposal of the Appeals…………”.

15.           Under above circumstances, it is held that opposite parties no.1 and 2 have miserably failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that they have completed the development works and have provided basic amenities at the project site, even by the date when this complaint has been filed. It is settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of development at the project, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. It is very strange that in the present case, not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record, by opposite parties no.1 and 2, to prove that as to at what stage, development work has reached, in respect of the project, wherein, the plot, in question, is located. In case, the development/construction activities, are being undertaken and in progress or that the same has been completed, then it was for the opposite parties no.1 and 2, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but they failed to do so. Had construction and development work been completed and basic amenities been provided at the project site, then opposite parties no.1 and 2 would have definitely applied for completion certificate but there is nothing on record to prove so. As per settled law, in the absence of completion certificate, opposite parties no.1 and 2 cannot even offer possession of the plot what to speak of delivery thereof to the complainant.  On the other hand, opposite party no.3 in its written statement has very frankly stated that completion certificate in respect of the project in question has not been issued in favour of opposite parties no.1 and 2. Under these circumstances, the possession so offered by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the complainant, vide letters dated 18.09.2017 and 20.11.2017  is nothing but a paper possession, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
16.           The complainant has purchased the plot as far as back in 2015 and now it is May 2021 and still she is empty handed. There is an inordinate delay in the matter. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that we cannot make the complainant to wait for an indefinite period, in the matter and, as such,  she was within their right to seek refund of the amount paid, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Versus Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442, wherein it was held that in case of delay in delivering possession of the residential units/plots by the project proponent, the buyer cannot be compelled to take possession at later stage and, on the other hand, he/she is entitled to refund of the amount paid alongwith interest. In the present case also, since there has been an inordinate delay in the matter, which is still a continuing one, as such, we are of the considered opinion that if we order refund of the amount paid alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits  in view of decision rendered by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in H.U.D.A. Vs. Neelam Sharma, Civil Appeal no.3417 of 2003 decided on 18.08.2004, wherein it was held that in case of refund of amount, the Interest Act would apply and 12% interest is to be granted from the date of amounts deposited till repayment and also by the Hon’ble National Commission in Alok Kumar Vs. M/s. Golden Peacock Residency Private Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 1315 of 2018, decided on 06 Sep 2019  and Anil Kumar Jain & Anr  Vs. M/s. Nexgen Infracon Private Limited (A Mahagun Group Company), Consumer Case No. 1605 of 2018, decided on 23^rd Dec 2019, wherein interest @12% p.a. was awarded to the complainant, on the amounts to be refunded to her from the respective dates of deposits; that will meet the ends of justice.
17.           Now coming to the objection raised by opposite party no.1, to the effect that this complaint is time barred, it may be stated here that because, as has been held above that actual physical possession of the plot in question has not been offered and delivered to the complainant, for the reasons explained above nor the amount paid has been refunded to her, as such, there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant to file this complaint, in view of principle of law down, in  Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah  and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  wherein it was held that when physical possession of the residential units/plots is not offered and delivered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer.
18.           The next question under our consideration is as to whether, time for handing over possession of the plot to the complainant, was essence of the contract or not? It may be stated here that a specific period of 24 months (18 months plus 6 months) from the date  of execution of the agreement dated 08.05.2015, for delivering possession of the plot to the complainant has been mentioned in condition no. 8 (a) thereof i.e. latest by 07.05.2017. Other than this condition contained in the agreement, there is no other condition, which speaks about the period/date for delivery of possession of plot to the complainant. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have not placed on record an iota of evidence to convince this Commission that they actually encountered any force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, they are legally entitled for extension of time for delivering possession of the plot to the allottees, including the complainant. They cannot wriggle out of the commitments made vide Clause 8 of the agreement with regard to time period for delivery of possession.  As such, objection taken in this regard being devoid of merit stands rejected.
19.           As far as objection taken by opposite party no.1 to the effect that in the face of existence of Arbitration clause in the agreement, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred, it may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the buyer and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even the Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 against order dated 13.02.2018, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 10.12.2018. Even otherwise, it is a simple case of adoption of unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in providing service, on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2, as they have allotted a plot, actual legal possession whereof was never delivered to the complainant, for the reasons explained above. As such, objection raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 in this regard stands rejected.
20.           As far as objection taken to the effect that opposite party no.2 has been wrongly impleaded as necessary party to this complaint, it may be stated here that opposite party no.2 being Managing Director of the company, is holding such important position in the Company, where he is directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company and will be jointly and severally liable alongwith the Company, for all the acts done. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017. Objection taken in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
21.            As far as objection taken to the effect that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of HDFC bank/financial institution from which the complainant has obtained housing loan, as necessary party, it may be stated here that opposite party no.1 has failed to clarify, as to what prejudice has been caused to it in such a situation. However, irrespective of the fact that the said bank/financial institution has been made party to the complaint or not, this Commission in each and every complaint filed before it, wherein refund is ordered, gives direction to the effect that the bank/financial institution, if any, from which the complainant(s)/party concerned has raised housing loan for payment of installments, shall have the first charge of the amount payable. In this case also, this Commission is going to pass such directions. As such, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
22.           Furthermore, it is held that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are also not entitled to forfeit any amount out of the deposited one, because fault if any is on their part and not on the part of the complainant. At the same time, it is also held that since the complainant has sought refund of the amount paid towards the plot in question, which liberty was available to her under the law, as such, plea taken by opposite party no.1 to the effect that since the complainant has already been compensated for the delayed period, as such, she is not entitled to seek refund of the amount paid, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
23.           Now coming to the objection taken by opposite party no.3 with regard to court fees, it may be stated here that we have gone through the requisite documents and found that correct fees to the tune of Rs.4,000/-, has been paid by the complainant. Thus, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
24.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs and opposite parties no.1 and 2, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.53,51,386/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit onwards, without deducting any TDS as this interest is being granted as compensation, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount of Rs.53,51,386/- shall carry 3% penal interest i.e. 15% p.a. (12% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.), from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
2. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

25.           However, it is made clear that the Bank/Financial Institution, from which the complainant has obtained housing loan for making payment towards price of the plot in question, shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant.
26.           Complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
27.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
28.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced

05.05.2021

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Rg.