Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/42/2015

Shri Nitin Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

NP Sharma & Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

29 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	42 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	09.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	29.05.2015

 

Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, aged about 29 years, son of Sh. Surinder Aggarwal, resident of House No.161, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

Emaar MGF Land Limited, (Earlier Known as Emaar MGF Land Private Limited), through its Branch Manager/Project Head, S.C.O. Nos.120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, UT 160017

              ....  Opposite Party

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

 

BEFORE: MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh.Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

           

            The facts, in brief, are that in order to settle himself, in the tricity, the  complainant, applied to the Opposite Party, for the allotment of a residential plot, measuring 300 square yards, in its proposed township, and paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as booking amount.   The   complainant was allotted plot no.527, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, @ Rs.11,500/- per square yard, vide provisional allotment letter dated 09.05.2007 Annexure C-2. The basic sale price of the said plot was to the tune of Rs.40,50,354/-, which included External Development Charges and Preferential Location Charges.

2.       It was stated that the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, in respect of plot No.527, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was executed between the Parties, at Chandigarh. Thereafter, as per the installment payment plan, the complainant, in all, deposited an amount of Rs.39,52,854/-, towards part price of the said plot. It was further stated that since the complainant did not default in making payment of installments, therefore, he was given rebate of 5% of the basic sale price i.e. Rs.1,72,500/-. In this manner, the Opposite Party had received the total amount of Rs.41,25,354/- i.e. Rs.39,52,854/-, including rebate amount of Rs.1,72,500/-. It was further stated that, thus the Opposite Party had received Rs.75,000/-, in excess, towards price of the said plot.
3.       It was further stated that according to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement, (Annexure C-3), the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the residential plot, in favour of the complainant, within a period of 2 years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement). It was further stated that it was also   mentioned in Clause 8 of the said Agreement, that, in case, the Opposite Party, failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period, it was  liable to pay penalty/compensation, to the allottee, @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay. Thus, the Opposite Party was to deliver possession of the residential plot, to the allottee, latest by 18.06.2010, but the same was not offered.
4.       It was further stated that thereafter the complainant made a number of visits to the site as well to the Office of the Opposite Party, but it failed to give any reply regarding delivery of possession of plot, in question. It was further stated that left with no alternative, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to relocate him, to another plot, in the said project. It was further stated that as such, the complainant was relocated to plot No.722, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, in lieu of plot No.527. Revised allotment letter dated 22.12.2014 Annexure C-7, in respect of plot No.722, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was issued in favour of the complainant, and Amendment Agreement in respect of relocated plot No.722, was also executed between the parties. There was no difference in the cost of the relocated plot.. It was further stated that all the terms and conditions of the original Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, except the change of no. of the plot, were kept intact. It was further stated that, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Party also made  another demand of Rs.72,996/-, in respect of relocated plot No.722, which was totally illegal.
5.       It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party, a number of times, with a request to deliver possession of plot No.722, to him, but it failed to give any positive reply.
6.       It was further stated that the Opposite Party collected the huge amount, towards the price of plot No.722,  by making a false promise, that physical possession thereof, shall be handed over within the maximum period of 3 years, from 19.06.2007, but it did not abide by its commitment. It was further stated that, as such, the entire amount of sale consideration, deposited by the  complainant, in the manner, referred to above, towards the part price of plot, was utilized by the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, he was caused huge financial loss.
7.       It was further stated that since the Opposite Party had not offered physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, in favour of the complainant, he was not able to construct house thereon, and reside therein. It was further stated that thus, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, to him, and also suffered further financial loss, on account of non-payment of compensation. It was further stated that neither possession of the plot, in question was offered, nor delivered, nor penalty/ compensation, as stipulated in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, was paid.
8.       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 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs
9.       The Opposite Party was served, and put in appearance, on 15.04.2015 and filed it written version, on 21.05.2015. In its written version, the Opposite Party,  pleaded that since the complainant was only 21 years old boy, at the relevant time, when his father purchased the plot, in question, for him, as such, he (complainant) did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, meaning thereby that he (complainant) had purchased the same (unit), with an intention to earn profits, after selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate. It was further pleaded that the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further pleaded that since an arbitration Clause was incorporated, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3,  disputes, if any, between the Party,  in respect of the unit, in question, could only be adjudicated upon, by the Arbitrator.
10.       It was further pleaded that time was never made the essence of contract. It was further pleaded that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, in respect of the immovable property, only a suit for specific performance was maintainable. It was admitted that the Opposite Party, in the first instance, allotted plot No.527, in favour of the complainant. It was also admitted that as per the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, possession of plot no.527, complete in all respects, was required be handed over to the complainant, within a maximum period of 36 months, from the date of execution thereof. It was also admitted that the total sale consideration of plot no.527 was to the tune of Rs.40,50,354/-, as mentioned in the complaint. It was also not disputed that the complainant, in all, deposited the amount of Rs.39,52,854/-, towards part price of the said plot, in time, as a result whereof, he was given rebate @5% of the basic sale price. It was stated that the complainant was required to fill in indemnity bond, to receive such rebate. It was also admitted that the complainant was relocated to plot No.722, in the same project, on his request. It was also admitted that, in case of delay of delivery of possession of the plot, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Party was to pay compensation/penalty for the period of delay. It was further stated that it was well within the knowledge of the complainant that for any delays, stipulated penalty had been provided in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, which safeguarded his rights. It was further stated that the complainant concealed the material facts that possession of the plot No.527,  was offered to him, vide letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, after providing the amenities, as per Clause 23 of the same (Agreement), through courier, receipt whereof is at page 70 of the file. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.72,996/-, demanded from the complainant was in respect of increase in the EDC. 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. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
11.       In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
12.       The complainant submitted his affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
13.       The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Mr.Sachin Kapoor, its Senior Manager (Legal), alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 
14.       We have heard the Counsel for the Party,  and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.   
15.       The first 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. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Party that since the complainant was only 21 years old boy, at the relevant time, when his father purchased the plot, in question, for him, as such, he (complainant) did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, meaning thereby that he (complainant) had purchased the same (unit), with an intention to earn profits, after selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.  It may be stated here that, no law debars any adult to purchase any property in his/her name. It was not that a number of units, were booked by the complainant, in his individual capacity. As stated above, the complainant only purchased the unit, in question, in his name. There is no evidence, on the record, that the complainant has a number of other residential units and houses or commercial plots. Even no evidence, was produced by the Opposite Party,  that the complainant is the property dealer, and, as such, dealing in the sale and purchase of the property. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the plot, in question, was purchased by the  complainant, in the manner, referred to above, by way of investment, with a view to earn huge profits. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
16.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Act, was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of the reason, that an arbitration Clause existed, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3.  With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986, is required to be made, which reads as under ;

“3.Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of arbitration Clause, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, would not oust the Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  Similar principle of law, was laid down, in  Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC). In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected

17.       The  next  question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  that since possession of plot No.527,  was offered to the complainant, vide letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, after providing the amenities, as per Clause 23 of the same (Agreement), through courier receipt whereof is at page 70 of the file, the cause of action accrued to him on that date (23.09.2011) as such, the present complaint filed by him, on 09.03.2015, was palpably barred by time. It may be stated here that there is no concrete document, on record, as to by which mode, offer of possession letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, was sent to the complainant. No receipt duly signed by the complainant, in token of having received offer of possession letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, was produced by the Opposite Party. As far as the  receipt dated 23.09.2011 of Blazeflash Couriers Limited is concerned, it may be stated here that the authenticity thereof is doubtful. Neither the complete address of the consignee/contact person/complainant nor the complete address of the consignor/sender are mentioned therein. Even the columns of service charges, service tax, other charges, controlling office, destination, description of contents, charges etc. have been left blank. Even the receipt dated 23.09.2011 of Blazeflash Couriers Limited, is not signed by anybody. Thus, it was not proved that offer of possession letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, was ever sent by the Opposite Party or was received by the complainant. The receipt of offer of possession letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, has been specifically denied by the complainant, in the rejoinder as also, during arguments. According to Clause 36 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, all notices, referred to therein (Agreement), were required to be, in writing, and deemed to be properly given and served upon the party(s), if sent either by registered A.D. or speed A.D., on his/her respective address.  Offer of possession letter dated 23.09.2011 Annexure R-2, was not sent through registered A.D. or speed A.D. as there is no such mention on the top of the same. The Opposite Party has also failed to establish that the offer of possession (Annexure R-2) sent through the courier was received by the complainant. Under these circumstances, it could very well be said, that this letter allegedly sent, was not received by the complainant, and, therefore, the question of accrual of cause of action, in favour of the latter, in 2011, did not at all arise. Thus, neither possession of the plot No.527, earlier allotted in favour of the complainant, in the manner, referred to above, nor the relocated plot No.722 was offered, nor delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, nor till the date of filing the complaint nor the penalty, as provided in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, was paid to him, nor in the alternative the refund of the amount deposited by him, was made to him. There was, thus, a continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant. 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 submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, time was the essence of contract or not and as to within which period, delivery of possession of the plot, in question, was to be given.  It may be stated here, that, in the instant case, as stated above, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the residential plot, in favour of the  complainant, within a period of 2 years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement). It was further mentioned in Clause 8 of the said Agreement, that, in case, the Opposite Party,  failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period, it was liable to pay penalty/compensation, to the allottee, @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay. Thus, the Opposite Party was to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the  complainant, latest by 18.06.2010. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
19.       The Plot Buyer's Agreement, Annexure C-3, in respect of plot no.527, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was executed between the Parties,  on 19.06.2007. Later on, Amended Agreement in respect of Plot No.722 was executed wherein except the location of the unit, all other terms and conditions were kept intact. According to Clause 8 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons, beyond the control of the Company, it was to deliver physical possession of the plot, within a period of two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). It is, thus, evident from this Clause, that the Opposite Party,  was required to deliver possession of the relocated plot No.722, in question, allotted, in favour of the complainant, in the manner, referred to above,  within three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3. Admittedly, possession of the relocated  plot No.722, was not delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed. The Opposite Party, in its written statement, filed by way of evidence has stated in para 4 under preliminary objections that development work/laying of amenities uptil the plot AP-722-300 are expected to be completed in a period of 8-9 months. By not delivering the possession to the complainant, within the maximum period of three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, and by not abiding by the commitment made, it (Opposite Party) was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant is certainly entitled to physical possession of the unit, in question.
20.       No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  placed reliance on Smt. Chand Rani (dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Kamal Rani (dead) by LRs., AIR 1993 SC 1742, a case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  to contend that time was not the essence of contract. The facts of  Smt. Chand Rani's case (supra), are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Smt. Chand Rani's case (supra), related to the specific performance of contract. It was held that intention to make time, as the essence of contract, must be expressed in unequivocal terms in the Agreement. It was, under these circumstances, held, in the said case, that time was not the essence of contract. Whereas, in the instant case, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of relocated plot No.722, in favour of the  complainant, within a period of 2 years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement) i.e. latest by 18.06.2010. Even after the expiry of more than about seven years, from the date of date of allotment of the plot, and subsequent relocation thereof, and more than about four and a half years, from the stipulated date, the possession thereof, was not delivered to the complainant. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Therefore, no help, from the aforesaid case, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the Opposite Party. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
21.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed relocated plot No.722, by the Opposite Party, by the promised date. According to Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above, the  Opposite Party was  liable to pay to the complainant, penalty/ compensation, in the sum of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, beyond three years, from the date of execution of  the same. As held above, possession of relocated plot No.722, was not delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed.  The complainant is, thus,  entitled to compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 18.06.2010 (promised date) onwards, on account of delay, in delivery of possession of the fully developed plot, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above.
22.       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, and injury caused to him, for a long number of years, by not delivering physical possession of the plot, to him, by the Opposite Party, by the promised date i.e. 18.06.2010. 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 the 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. 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, as stated above, despite making the entire sale consideration, in respect of relocated plot No.722, possession thereof, was not offered to the complainant. The complainant purchased the plot, in question, in the manner, referred to above, with the hope to have a roof over his head, by raising construction thereon, but his hopes were dashed to the ground. Till date, i.e. even after the expiry of a period of about five years, from the promised date,  i.e. 18.06.2010, physical possession has not yet been offered to the complainant, by the Opposite Party. The complainant has thus underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. Compensation of Rs.1.50 lacs, if granted, on account of deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party, as also mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, by it, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs.
23.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to what amount is required to be paid by the complainant, at the time of taking over possession of the said plot. It may be stated here, that as stated above, the sale price of relocated plot No.722,  was Rs.40,50,354/-. The Opposite Party had received the total amount of Rs.38,77,854/- as is evident from the statement of account as on 28.04.2015 in respect of Unit No.109-AP-722-300 placed by the Opposite Party (page 67 of the file). A sum of Rs.1,72,500/-, was 5% rebate given to the complainant. As per statement of account referred to above, a sum of Rs.24,923/- has been shown to be balance payable by the complainant. Since there is no rebuttal to account statement in rejoinder by the complainant, the same has to be accepted as correct. However, as far as the payment of stamp duty charges and registration charges, are concerned, the same shall be paid by the complainant, at the time of execution and registration of sale deed, as per law and the Rules applicable.
24.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
25.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-
    1. To hand over physical possession of relocated plot No.722,  approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, to the complainant, within 8 months, complete in all respects, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3,  from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
    2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within one month, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by the complainant.
    3. To pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month,  from  18.06.2010 (the promised date of delivery of possession), onwards to the complainant, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 19.06.2007, Annexure C-3.
    4. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, to the complainant on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him (complainant), at its hands.
    5. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.
    6. Compensation, granted to the complainant, as mentioned in Clause (iii), which has fallen due upto 31.05.2015, shall be paid by the Opposite Party, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A., from 18.06.2010, till realization.
    7.  Compensation accruing due @Rs.50/-per square yard, per month,   w.e.f.  01.06.2015, onwards, shall be paid by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @9 % P.A., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession.
    8.  Compensation granted, in favour of the complainant, on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.1.50 lacs, as mentioned in Clause (iv),  shall be paid by the Opposite Party, within a period of 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which it shall pay interest @9% P.A., on the same, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.
26.       However, it is made clear that the complainant shall execute amended agreement in respect of relocated Plot No.722 and also pay balance amount of Rs.24,923/-, as per statement of Account (R-1) within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
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.

29.05.2015

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg.