Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/116/2016

Gulnaz Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emaar MGF Land Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Bains & IPS Bains, Adv.

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	116 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.03.2016
Date of Decision	:	30.08.2016

 

Gulnaz Kaur w/o Sh. Kawaljit Singh Goraya d/o Sh. Avtar Singh, resident of House No.1136, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh, through her General Power of Attorney Avtar Singh Bhatti.

 

……Complainant

V e r s u s

Emaar MGF Land Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No. 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                                    .... Opposite Party

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh.  S.S.Bains, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.  Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant in response to the scheme launched by the Opposite Party under the name and style of “The Views at Mohali Hills” in Sector 105, Mohali, applied for registration of unit/apartment vide application dated 02.07.2009 and paid the booking amount of Rs.7 lacs. Thereafter, the complainant allotted unit bearing No. F3/F06/604 measuring 1820 sq. ft. vide allotment letter dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that the Unit Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 22.07.2009 (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the total consideration of the said unit was Rs.55,91,604/-. It was further stated that the complainant paid the installment on time, therefore, the Opposite Party issued a letter dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure C-3) to her on qualifying for the “Pay on Time” reward and as such, she became entitled for 5% waiver of basic price at the time of payment of last installment.  It was further stated that the complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.48,19,640/-, as is evident from statement of account (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the unit within a period of 36 months, as stipulated in the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainant despite repeated visits to the office of the Opposite Party, neither delivered possession of the said unit nor refunded the amount to the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure C-5) upon the Opposite Party but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.           The Opposite Party, in its written version, has taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and it separately, moved an application u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of “Consumer”, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant is a Non Resident Indian (NRI), who has no intention of settling at Chandigarh and purchased the flat for speculation purposes. It was further stated that the Opposite Party offered relocation to the complainant to another tower, wherein, the construction was at advanced stage but she refused to accept it. It was further stated that as per Clause 21.1 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party had ‘proposed’ to handover possession of the unit within 36 months from the allotment with a further grace period of 90 days for applying and obtaining Occupation Certificate. It was further stated that the term “proposes” duly indicated that there was no definitive commitment to hand over possession within 36 months, as time was not the essence of the Agreement as far as possession is concerned and the complainant had accepted the alleged delay, as her interest was safeguarded by the compensation clause in the Agreement and the Opposite Party had committed to bear penalty for delayed possession, if any, beyond the time frame stipulated under the Agreement, at the time of registration of the unit. It was further stated that the complaint is barred by limitation, as the consumer complaint can be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action and in the present case, the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant for seeking possession/refund arose after 3 years from the date of Buyer’s Agreement, as such, the cause of action arose on 21.07.2012 and the present complaint now being filed is barred by limitation. It was further stated that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement and in case of seeking refund ; forfeiture clause would be applicable. It was further stated that the Agreement was executed at Mohali, property is situated at Mohali and the registered office of the Opposite Party is situated at Delhi, as such, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It was further stated that the Company received an amount of Rs.48,19,640/- towards the said unit from the complainant, as per statement of accounts (Annexure R-1). It was further stated that the structure work has been completed in Tower F, where the unit is located and internal finishing works are in progress. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

4.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

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

6.           Admittedly, unit bearing No.F3/604 in the residential project situated in “The Views” at Mohali Hills in Sector 105, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure C-1). It is also the admitted fact that Unit Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 22.07.2009 (Annexure C-2). It is also the admitted fact that total consideration of the unit, as per the Agreement, was Rs.55,91,604/-, out of which, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.48,19,640/-, as is evident from statement of account (Annexure C-4), after eligible for last installment 5% basic price waived off (Annexure C-3). It was also the admitted fact that as per Clause 21.1 of the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainant within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment but despite receipt of the huge amount, neither the Opposite Party delivered possession of the unit, to the complainant within the stipulated period nor refunded the amount to her, despite repeated requests.

7.             The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration Act 1996, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It may be stated here that the objection raised by the Opposite Party, in this regard, deserves rejection, in view of the judgment passed by this Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, wherein this issue was dealt, in detail, while referring various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the National Commission, New Delhi, and also Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ultimately it was held by this Commission that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was also so said by the National Commission, recently, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

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

            In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, passed by the National Commission and this Commission, the arguments raised by Counsel for the Opposite Party, stands rejected.

8.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that the mere objection of the Opposite Party that since the complainant is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), as such she had purchased the unit for speculation purpose only, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected because the Opposite Party has failed to place on record any document, which proves that the complainant is NRI.  Moreover, the complainant has also denied in her rejoinder that she purchased the flat for speculation purposes, as she is residing abroad and is a NRI. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential unit, which was allotted, in favour of the complainant, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainant. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property. No evidence was also produced, by the Opposite Party, to prove that the complainant owned a number of other residential properties, in the tricity, and, as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. If for the sake of arguments, we believe that the complainant is NRI, no law debars an NRI, who basically belonged to India, to purchase a residential property in India. Under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as Smt. Reshma Bhagat & Anr. Vs. M/s Supertech Ltd. Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 2012, decided on 04.01.2016, held as under:-

“We are unable to clap any significance with these faint arguments.  It must  be borne in mind that after selling the property at Bangalore, and  in order  to save  the money from riggers  of capital gain tax, under  Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there lies no rub in getting the property, anywhere, in whole of India.  There is not even an iota of evidence that they are going to earn anything from the flat in dispute.  From the evidence, it is apparent that the same had been  purchased  for  the residence of  the complainants.  Moreover, Sh. Tarun S. Bhagat, who is an independent person. It cannot be made a ‘rule of thumb’ that every NRI cannot own a property in India.  NRIs do come to India, every now and then.  Most of the NRIs have to return to their native land. Each NRI wants a house in India.  He is an independent  person  and  can  purchase any  house in India,  in his own name.”

                   Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Party, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  Revision Petition No. 3861 of 2014, decided on 26.08.2015. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that, being NRI, the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainant, for speculation. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

9.           Another frivolous objection was taken by the Opposite Party, by stating that the unit, in question, is situated at Mohali, Agreement was executed at Mohali, and registered office of the Opposite Party situated at Delhi, as such, this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

              According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant(s), before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction, whereof a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, Unit Buyer’s Agreement, in respect of the unit bearing No.TVM F3-F06-604, Tower No. F, was executed between the complainant and the Opposite Party, at Chandigarh on  22.07.2009 (Annexure C-2).  Not only this, perusal of record reveals that allotment letter dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure C-1) and the letter dated 06.07.2009 regarding 5% waiver off in the installment (Annexure C-3), was sent by Chandigarh office of the Opposite Party, as the same had the address “Emaar MGF Land Private Limited/Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017”. It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission has, therefore, got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Party, also stands rejected.

10.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was barred by time or not. The Counsel for the Opposite Party stated that the complaint is time barred, having been filed beyond two years of alleged cause of action, because in the present case, cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant for seeking possession/refund arose after three years from the date of Agreement and the complaint now being filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. After going through the record of the case, we are not impressed with the contention of the Counsel for the Opposite Party. It may be stated here, that neither physical possession of the unit was delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, as mentioned in the Agreement, after receipt of huge amount from her, nor refunded the deposited amount to her, despite repeated requests. As such, there was, thus, a continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant, to file the complaint.  In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing-fully well, that the land, in question, was under litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The objection of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.          As regards objection raised by the Opposite Party, in its written statement, that as per Clause 21.1 of the Unit Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Party had “proposed” to hand over possession of the unit within a period of 36 months from the allotment with a further grace period of 90 days for applying and obtaining occupation certificate. It was further stated that the term ‘proposes’ duly indicated that there was no definitive commitment to hand over possession within 36 months, as time was not the essence of the Agreement. It is, no doubt, true that Unit Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties on 22.07.2009 (Annexure C-2) and it is evident from Clause 21.1 of the Agreement that  the Opposite Party was to hand over possession of the said unit, in favour of the complainant, within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment. Moreover, the allotment letter dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure C-1) was issued to the complainant. So, it is clearly proved that possession was to be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment (03.07.2009) i.e. latest by 02.07.2012. Thus, once a specific period of 36 months was mentioned in the Agreement, the Opposite Party was bound to deliver possession in the said 36 months i.e. latest by 02.07.2012 and not beyond that.  It is not the case of the Opposite Party that it encounted any force majeure circumstances, as no document has been placed on record in this regard. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Therefore, the  objection taken by the Opposite Party, in its written statement, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. According to Clause 21.1 of the  Unit Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-2), subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Company, it was to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 36 months, from the date of allotment i.e. 03.07.2009 and the said period has already expired on 02.07.2012. However, till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.03.2016, the Opposite Party neither delivered possession of the unit to the complainant, despite repeated requests. Moreover,  the Opposite Party had already received a huge amount of Rs.48,19,640/-, towards the said unit, as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure C-4/R-1). By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within a period of 36 months, from the date of the allotment, the Opposite Party failed to abide the commitments, as such, it was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

13.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of 48,19,640/-, as claimed by her,  towards the unit, in question. It is, no doubt, true that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.48,19,640/- in respect of the unit, in question, as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure C-4/R-1). The allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 03.07.2009 and as per Unit Buyer’s Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment i.e. latest by 02.07.2012 and about  7 years had passed from the date of issuance of allotment letter but the Opposite Party failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant.  The Opposite Party in its written statement clearly stated that the structure work has been completed in Tower F, where the unit is located and internal finishing works are in progress.   Even the Opposite Party had no right, to retain the hard earned money of the complainant, without rendering her, any service. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Party was not in a position to deliver possession of the unit to the complainant.  In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to refund of amount of Rs.48,19,640/-, deposited by her.

              At the time of arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Party stated that when complainant sought refund of the amount, forfeiture clause is applicable upon her. In a similar case relating to delayed possession, titled as Guninder Jeet Singh Salh Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Consumer Complaint No. 113 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 23.09.2015, noting ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), it was said that the consumer can claim refund. The National Commission was dealing with a similar situation, in the above case. In that case also, possession was not offered within the stipulated period. The consumer complaint was filed by the complainant, before this Commission, claiming refund of the amount paid by him. This Commission took it as a case of rescinding of contract and allowed the Opposite Parties to forfeit 10% of the deposited amount. The above named builder went in appeal, which was dismissed, by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, holding as under:-

 

 “It is apparent from the above clause, that possession of the apartment was to be handed over within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment,  with  grace period of 3 months. Admittedly, no possession was offered to the original allottee or to the respondent, till 26.11.2011 when she stepped into the shoes of original allottee. Thus, on the date of accepting the present respondent as allottee on 26.11.2011, the apartment in question was not complete.

 

23.    As appellants did not offer possession within the period prescribed under Clause 21 of the ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, the deficiency on the part of appellants,  started right from that very moment. It is an admitted fact, that while offering the possession even in the year 2013, appellants sent letter dated 13.5.2013 and  respondent was asked to deposit sum of Rs.3,05,969.70, within 30 days. When payment of the instalments is construction linked,  then we fail to understand as to how  before completing the construction appellants demanded the aforesaid amount.  This act of appellants goes on to show, that even on 13.5.2013 construction of apartment was not complete. It was only vide letter dated 16.8.2013, appellants offered possession of the apartment,  subject to certain payments.

24.    Thus, appellants themselves have violated the material conditions with regard to handing over of the possession, now it does not lie in their mouth to demand further payment from  the respondent. Even assuming for arguments sake, that payment as demanded vide letter dated 16.8.2013 was due, but the respondent was fully justified in not making the payment, when appellants failed to complete the construction and handover the possession, within the agreed period.  Appellants could not force the respondent, after having accepting money from the original allottee in the year 2006 and  part payment from present respondent in the year 2011, to accept possession of the apartment in the year 2013,  which was against the terms of the Agreement.  The above facts clearly goes on to show, that appellants have been enjoying the substantial amount of money received by them in the year 2006, till 2013.  Therefore, this plea of appellants, that they have done their part of the duty and it is the respondent who is defaulter, does not hold any water.

25.    The deficiency on the part of appellants is writ large in this case. We may note, that under such circumstances there was no occasion for the State Commission to have deducted 10% of the deposited amount as respondent was not at fault at all. On the other hand, appellants were deficient when they themselves have violated the terms and conditions of ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, The case law relied by ld. counsel for appellants are not applicable at all to the facts of the present case.”

It was clearly stated by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill’s case (supra), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. Moreover, the Opposite Party in its written statement clearly stated the structure work has been completed in Tower F, where the unit is located and internal finishing works are in progress. It is clearly proved that the Opposite Party has not fulfilled its part of the Agreement and failed to develop the infrastructure alongwith other amenities and failed to offer possession of the unit to the complainant, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement. So, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Party is, thus, in breach of its part of the obligation and is deficient in providing services even after receipt of the huge amount and, as such, the Opposite Party is not entitled to forfeit any amount, and refund the deposited amount to the complainant.

14.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to interest, on the deposited amount of Rs.48,19,640/-, if so, at what rate. The complainant was deprived of her hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.48,19,640/-, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Party, that it would be handed over legal physical possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment i.e. by 02.07.2012. However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver physical possession of the unit to the complainant, despite receipt of the huge amount. The complainant was, thus, caused financial loss.  Hard earned money, deposited by the complainant, towards price of unit, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Party, for a number of years. Had this amount been deposited by the complainant, in some bank, or had she invested the same, in some business, she would have earned handsome returns thereon. It is therefore, held that the Opposite Party, by neither delivering possession of the unit, by the stipulated date, nor refunding the amount to the complainant was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. No doubt, as per Clause 20.1 of the Unit Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Party was charging interest @15% per annum compounded from the complainant. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, if  interest  @15% P.A. compounded, on the amount deposited by the complainant, from the respective dates of deposits, is granted, that will serve the ends of justice.  

15.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the  complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment caused to her. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant(s). The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation.  It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.  Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling them (Consumer Foras), to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainant(s). The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment, at the hands of the Opposite Party, for a number of years, as it neither delivered physical possession of unit nor refunded the amount to her, despite repeated requests. The complainant, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. Compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

16.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

17.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Party is directed, as under:-

1. To  refund   the  amount Rs.48,19,640/-, to  the complainant, alongwith interest compounded @ 15% per annum, from the respective  dates of deposits onwards, within 45 days, from   the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this   order.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
4. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest compounded     @18% P.A., instead of interest compounded @ 15% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest compounded @15% P.A., on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

18.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced.

August 30, 2016.                                    Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb