Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/46/2016

Jit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mohit Sareen

16 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	46 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	05.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	16.05.2016

 

1. Jit Singh s/o Inder Singh, r/o B-39/109, Mohalla Dr. Sadaq Ali, Kapurthala, Punjab.
2. Roopa Rani, r/o B-39/109, Mohalla Dr. Sadaq Ali, Kapurthala, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, SCO No.120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh - 160017, through its Managing Director.  
2. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Limited, ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, through its Director.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh. Mohit Sareen, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that the complainants, in the year 2007, applied vide application bearing No.372 to the Opposite Parties for allotment of a residential plot, measuring 300 sq. yards and paid the booking amount of Rs.11,10,000/-.  It was stated that the Opposite Parties issued provisional allotment letter dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure P-1) to the complainants, vide which, they were allotted plot No.579 measuring 300 sq. yards in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.35,21,604/- towards the sale price of the residential unit. Thereafter, Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties (Annexure P-2). It was further stated that since the said plot existed only on papers and no definite location was provided to the complainants,  they requested for a change in location of the plot in the said project and, accordingly, revised Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 04.07.2007 in respect of plot No.280, Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali was signed and executed between the parties on the same terms and conditions, as agreed in the previous Agreement. Copies of revised allotment letter and Agreement are Annexures P-3 and P-4. It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons beyond the control of the Company, the physical possession of the fully developed residential unit was to be handed over to the complainants, within a period of two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution of the Agreement and in case of delay in handing over of possession, the  Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month for such period of delay. It was further stated that the complainants had paid the total amount of Rs.39,52,854/- to the Opposite Parties vide receipts Annexure P-5 to P-13. It was further stated that the complainants had made the timely payment to the Opposite Parties, so they were entitled for a rebate of 5% of the basic sale price. It was further stated that after making the payment, aforesaid, the complainants insisted the Opposite Parties to give possession of the unit, in question, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It was averred that the complainants visited the site and found that there was no development and even the basic amenities like water, sewerage, roads and street lights were not available at the site. It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants, maximum by the stipulated date i.e. 04.07.2010 but they failed to deliver the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, 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 Parties, in their written version, have taken a specific objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was stated that in case of seeking refund of the amount by the complainants, the forfeiture clause, as per the Agreement, would be applicable. It was further stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint, as the plot is situated at Mohali. It was further stated that the complainants were provisionally allotted unit no.109-AG-579-300 in Augusta Greens (not Augusta Park) in Sector 109, vide letter dated 09.05.2007 and the total cost of the unit was Rs.40,50,354/-.

              It was further stated that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was issued for the signatures of the complainants for plot No.579 but the same was not signed or executed by them. It was further stated that the complainants requested for a location change after the Buyer’s Agreement was issued. Thereafter, the complainants were allotted unit No.109-AP-280-300 and issued a revised allotment letter dated 11.09.2007. It was further stated that Buyer’s Agreement for the said unit was 04.07.2007, as the complainants wanted it to be from the initial allotment made and Agreement issued date. It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to hand over the unit within a period of 3 years from the date of signing the Agreement and in case of any delays, there were sufficient safeguards in built in the Agreement to protect the customer’s interests. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties received an amount of Rs.39,52,000/- against the unit, in question. It was further stated that the complainants qualified for 5% on time payment rebate scheme launched by the Company and as a result, the last installment of 5% of basic sale price was waived off and the credit of the same would be given to the customer at the time of intimation of possession. It was further stated that the complainants are defaulters and have not paid the installments on time. It was further stated that possession could not be offered to the complainants, since the amenities/services have not been completed for the plot and the Opposite Parties offer possession, after completion of amenities, as per the Agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties offered the complainants another unit, as an option to relocate, but there was no response from their side. Copy of the email communication is Annexure R-2.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

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

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

5.           Admittedly, the complainants were initially allotted plot No.579 measuring 300 sq. yards in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali vide provisional allotment letter dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure P-1). It is also the admitted fact that on the request of the complainants for change in location, they were allotted plot No.280, Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, for which, the complainants paid the total amount of Rs.39,52,854/- vide receipts Annexure P-5 to P-13. It is also the admitted fact that Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 04.07.2007 was also executed between the parties (Annexure P-4). It is also the admitted fact that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of unit was to be delivered to the complainants maximum within a period of 3 years i.e. by 04.07.2010 but they failed to deliver the same within the stipulated time frame, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, despite repeated requests.

6.           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 and Conciliation Act 1996 (in short 1996 Act), this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, this Commission elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha’s case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra), this Commission in Para 19 held as under:-

“19. It was specifically observed that even in those cases, where two different redressal Agencies/Acts, have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. Taking note of a weak position, in which a consumer is set against multinational companies and other big producers, it was said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),that, where there is any ambiguity in understanding the meaning of provision of law, or where two interpretations are possible, one beneficial to the consumer should be accepted. The same view was reiterated in LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC).”

7.        This Commission after dealing with the unamended/amended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 3 of 1986 Act, and in view of law laid down in judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy  &  anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) and Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013 and judgments of National Commission in DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013; Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited’s & Ors., Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 decided on 8.6.2015 and Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors., First Appeal No. 127 of 2016, decided on 18.03.2016, came to the conclusion that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also by the National Commission in a large number of cases, Section 3 of 1986 Act provides for an additional remedy available to a consumer and the said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act. Further the remedy under the 1986 Act is cost effective and much speedier than the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Referring the matter to the Arbitrator would defeat the very purpose of General Assembly Resolution No.39/248 and the provisions of 1986 Act and in view of above, the plea raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (in that case), was rejected. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission in in Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, consumer complaint No.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016, by further holding as under:-

“20. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. In the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase a unit, in a housing project, launched by the opposite party. It was their hope that they will live therein. However, their hopes were shattered, when despite making payment of entire amount towards price, they failed to get possession of a unit, in a developed project. As per established ratio of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and also in the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), it was said that the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

21. In view of the above, the argument raised by Counsel for the opposite party that 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 no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected”.

8.           Further this Commission in case titled ‘Sukhjinder Singh Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd.’, Complaint Case No.278 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2016, held as under:-

“Not only as above, execution of judgment/decree passed by the Consumer Foras is very easy and less time consuming. Invariably, in all the judgments passed, between one to three months’ time, is granted to the judgment debtors(s) to discharge liability. If it is not so done, and the order is not stayed in the meantime by the Higher Fora, two options are available with the complainant/decree holder. Section 25 of 1986 Act provides the procedure to enforce orders by the Consumer Foras. In Sector 25 (3), it is provided that where any amount is due from any person, under an order passed by any Consumer Fora, the concerned Consumer Fora, on an application moved by the decree holder, may issue a certificate to the Collector of the District, to recover the said amount, by way of land revenue, in terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The said provision is also very stringent. The Collector is supposed to attach the holding of the judgment debtors to take the said property under his own management and control. The Collector is further supposed to manage the said property and raise all rents and profits accruing therefrom to the exclusion of the defaulter, until the decree is satisfied. The above procedure will consume at the maximum four to six months, for realization of the amount awarded. Further option is also available to a complainant/decree holder, to move an application under Section 27 of 1986 Act, which provides that where a trader or a person against whom, a complaint was made, fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Fora, such party would entail award of punishment of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one month, but may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and may be extended upto Rs.10,000/-, or both. This provision is very effective, as and when application is moved under Section 27 of 1986 Act, for fear of imprisonment, it is seen that immediately the judgment debtor(s) make an attempt to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Foras. Whereas, to the contrary Section 36 of 1996 Act, provides that award shall be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner, as if it was a decree of a Court. Such a procedure is very costly and time consuming. Executing a decree would virtually mean fighting one more litigation, in a Court, to get enforcement of the award. If such a procedure is adopted, it will defeat the very purpose and spirit of 1986 Act. Accordingly, in this view of the matter and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected.”   

In view of position stated above, the plea of the Opposite Party is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

9.           Another frivolous objection was taken by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, by stating that the unit, in question, is situated at Mohali, 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 complainants, 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, Plot Buyer’s Agreement, in respect of the unit bearing No.280 in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, in question, was executed, between the parties, at Chandigarh on  04.07.2007 (Annexure P-4).  Not only this, perusal of record reveals that the receipts (Annexure P-5 to P-13), were sent by Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties, as the same bore the address “Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017”. It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission has, therefore, got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, also stands rejected.

10.          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  complainants. According to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 04.07.2007 (Annexure P-4), subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 2 (two) years, from the date of execution of the Agreement, but not later than 3 (three) years. It is, thus, evident, from this Clause, that the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants,  within the maximum period of 3 years, from the date of execution of the  Agreement dated 04.07.2007, i.e. latest by 04.07.2010 but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants, within the stipulated period, as contained in the terms and conditions of the Agreement.  The Opposite Parties have also already received a huge amount i.e. Rs.39,52,854/-, towards the said unit, from the complainants. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties admitted in their written statement that since the amenities are not completed in the area, where the unit is located, possession has not been offered. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 3 years, from the  date of execution of the  Agreement, and by not abiding by the commitments, made by the Opposite Parties, they (Opposite Parties) were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.39,52,854/-, deposited by them,  towards the unit, in question. It is clearly proved from the receipts (Annexure P-5 to P-13) that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.39,52,854/- to the Opposite Parties, with regard to unit bearing No.280, Augusta Park in Sector 109, Mohali Hills, in question, which is a huge amount, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.40,50,354/-. It is the admitted fact that earlier the complainants were allotted unit bearing No.579 in Augusta Greens, Sector 109 vide provisional allotment letter dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure P-1). When no definite location was provided to the complainants, they requested for a change in location of the plot in the said project and accordingly, the Opposite Parties allotted plot No.280 in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question,  to the complainants, within the stipulated period of 3 years, as mentioned in the Agreement.  So, the Opposite Parties had no right, to retain the hard earned money of the complainants, without rendering them, any service. Even the Opposite Parties already admitted in their written statement that since the amenities are not completed in the area, where the unit is located, possession has not been offered. So, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants.  In our considered opinion, the complainants are entitled to refund of amount of Rs.39,52,854/-, deposited by them.

              Even in the written statement, the Opposite Parties took a plea that when complainants sought refund of the amount, forfeiture clause is applicable upon the complainants. 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 Parties in their written statement clearly stated since the amenities are not completed in the area, where the unit is located, so, possession has not been offered.   It is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties have not fulfilled their part of the Agreement and failed to develop the infrastructure alongwith other amenities and nor given possession of the unit to the complainants, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement. So, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties are, thus, in breach of their part of the obligation and are deficient in providing services even after receipt of the huge amount and, as such, the Opposite Parties are not entitled to forfeit any amount, and refund the deposited amount to the complainants. 

12.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to interest, on the amount of Rs.39,52,854/-, if so, at what rate. The complainants were deprived of their hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.39,52,854/-, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Parties, that they would be handed over legal physical possession of the unit, in question, after the completion of maximum period of three years i.e. by 04.07.2010, but they failed to do so. The complainants, thus, incurred financial loss.  Hard earned money, deposited by the complainants, towards price of unit, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Parties, for a number of years. Had this amount been deposited by the complainants, in some bank, or had they invested the same, in some business, they would have earned handsome returns thereon. It is therefore, held that the Opposite Parties, by neither delivering possession of the unit, by the stipulated date, nor refunding the amount to the complainants, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. As per Clause 3 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were charging interest @15% per annum compounded from the complainants, under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, if  interest  compounded @15% P.A., on the amount deposited by the complainants, from the respective dates of deposits, is granted, that will serve the ends of justice.  

13.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the  complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment caused to them. 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 complainants suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, for a number of years, as they failed to deliver physical possession of unit, in question, to them, by the promised date i.e. 04.07.2010. The complainants purchased the unit, with the hope to have a roof over their head, by raising construction thereon, but their hopes were dashed to the ground. The complainants, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. Compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainants, are, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

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

15.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed, as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.39,52,854/-, to  the complainants, 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 physical harassment, to the complainants, 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.25,000/- to the complainants.
4. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties 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.

 

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

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

Pronounced.

May 16, 2016.

 

 [DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER