Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/50/2015

Mrs. Satya Wati - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mashwinder Singh, Adv.

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH
 

1. Mrs. Satya Wati W/o Sh. Ram Rakha Aggarwal R/o House No.B22, Thermal Colony, Opp. Special School, Bhatinda – 151001.
2. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Ram Rakha Aggarwal R/o House No.B22, Thermal Colony, Opp. Special School, Bhatinda – 151001.
3. Neeti Garg W/o Mr. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal R/o House No.B22, Thermal Colony, Opp. Special School, Bhatinda – 151001.

……Complainants.

Versus

Emaar MGF Land Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No.120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

              ....Opposite Party.

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

BEFORE:   SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh. Mashwinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

              The facts, in brief, are that the complainants jointly booked for their residence with the Opposite Party in the year 2013 for better medical treatment as complainant No.1 is suffering from orthopedic problem in her both knees as the same need replacement. It was stated that on the advice and assurance given by the ale representative, namely, Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Rs.5 Lacs were paid to the Opposite Party vide cheque dated 24.11.2013 against booking of the plot and an Agreement dated 10.12.2013 was executed between the parties, and Plot No.104-EP-89-305 in Sector 104, SAS Nagar, Mohali, admeasuring 305 sq. yards @Rs.21,000/- per sq. yard was earmarked for total sale price of Rs.71,31,510/-. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, complainants were to pay 25% i.e. Rs.17,82,877.50 (15% on booking & 10% within two months of booking) whereas the rest of the amount was to be paid on intimation of possession.

2.         It was further stated that possession of the plot was to be delivered within a period of two years from the date of agreement. It was further stated that the complainants paid Rs.17,82,877.50 being 25% of the total sale consideration and borrowed a loan of Rs.21 Lacs from HDFC Bank. It was further stated that the complainants were paying the installment to the bank in lieu of loan as per statement of loan account (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that the representative of the Opposite Party assured that the complainant was to pay EMI after two years but no mention of the same was made in the agreement. It was further stated that the complainants also came to know  that the Opposite  Party was    offering   plots   in   the same Sector  104  on  discounted    rates,    which   was not

disclosed to the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants also requested the Opposite Party for discount in the sale price but they refused to do so. It was further stated that the complainants visited the office of the Opposite Party and demanded refund with interest as the Opposite Party did not disclose the true and correct facts at the time of booking. It was further stated that admitting their fault, the Opposite Party offered alternative plots/flat with discounted rates.

3.         It was further stated that the complainants approached the Opposite Party a number of times for fulfilling the commitments on their part by delivering for allotment of the alternative plot with discounted rates as per their scheme. It was further stated that the Opposite Party offered a 2BHK flat, which was rejected by the complainants due to poor quality and less area. It was further stated that the Opposite Party offered plot No.323 in Sector 109 at discounted rate on exchange basis but the said plot was not livable and its title was also not clear. It was further stated that finally, the complainants accepted the offer of the Opposite Party and consented to Plot No.15 in Sector 99 but the complainants were asked to give their written consent on email for releasing Plot No.89, Sector 104. It was further stated that the complainants were asked to send fresh cheque in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs for booking of Plot No.15, Sector 99 and also asked to deposit the original agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Party kept on threatening the complainants to choose the alternative plot otherwise the amount paid against Unit No.89 in Sector 104 was to be forfeited. It was further stated that after the complainants gave their consent to the alternative Plot No.15 in Sector 99, Mohali, the Opposite Party backed out from its commitment. It was further stated that the Opposite Party informed the complainant that it could not offer the plot and the complainants had to arrange money for the earlier plot otherwise, the money would be forfeited.

4.         It was further stated that the Opposite Party sent a letter dated 23.1.2015 regarding intimation of possession of Plot No.104-EP-89-305 in Sector 104, Mohali Hills, whereby it was informed that process of handing over the plots shall commence within 60 days of the letter as the complainant’s plot was ready to be handed over for possession. It was further stated that on final measurement, the area of the captioned plot stood revised to 261.14 sq. mtrs. (312.32 sq. yards) from the earlier area of 255.02 sq. mtrs. (305.00 sq. yards). It was further stated that accordingly, the price of the plot stood revised to 73,08,355.05Ps. It was further stated the complainant was required to deposit Rs.5,905/- towards the revised EDC. It was further stated that the Opposite Party also informed that temporary electricity and water connections had already been sanctioned for the project and on taking possession, the complainants could commence construction on the captioned plot after taking requisite approvals/building plan approvals from the Competent Authorities. It was further stated that vide email dated 7.2.2015, the Opposite Party informed the complainants that it would not be possible for it to consider their (complainants) request for relocation and asked to remit the payment towards unit No.89, Sector 104, Mohali.

5.         It was further stated that the complainants had already released plot No.89, Sector 104, Mohali and the original agreement had already been taken back by the Opposite Party in lieu of relocation of Plot No.15, Sector 99, Mohali (Annexure C-26). It was further stated that on visiting the plot location by the complainants, it was found that till date, water and sewerage pipes were not laid and there were no electric cable and street lights. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was lingering on the relocation and offered possession just to usurp and forfeit the money deposited.

6.            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 complainants, 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, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.17,82,877.50Ps alongwith interest @24% per annum; Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony; and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses; or in alternative, to offer plot No.89, Sector 104 with discounted scheme without charging increased price on increased area or handover Plot No.15 in Sector 99, as agreed by them.

7.         The Opposite Party, was served and put in appearance on 22.03.2015. It filed its written statement on 29.05.2015. In the written statement, the Opposite Party, took-up certain preliminary objections, to the effect that since the complainants had only paid a sum of Rs.17,84,000/-, this Commission was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that this Commission was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the existence of Arbitration clause No.42 in the Agreement; and that the complainants were not consumers as they purchased the property, in question, for commercial purposes/speculation.

8.         On merits, it was admitted that the complainants paid a sum of Rs.17,84,000/- to the Opposite Party. It was further that Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Party on 10.12.2013 and the total cost of the plot was Rs.71,31,510. It was further stated that two years period for handing over possession was to elapse on 9.12.2015 and the present complaint was premature. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, in discharge of its obligation, had already offered possession of the plot, in question, vide letter dated 3.1.2015 i.e. well within the agreed time lines. It was further stated that the complainants were supposed to pay 75% of the sale consideration towards the plot at the time of intimation of possession alongwith other relevant charges, as applicable. It was further stated that the complainants had opted for the scheme of payment as per their suitability and convenience. It was further stated that the complainants did not disclose as to why they were again in touch with brokers regarding plots at Mohali. It was further stated that the payment plan opted by the complainants was prevalent at the time of booking. It was further stated that it was not possible to consider the request of the complainants to shift them to another payment plan. It was further stated that the complainants were not interested in relocation of the plot as they were investors and were only asking for discounted price, irrespective of location of plot. It was further stated that there was no fault of the Company at it was only trying to accommodate the complainants’ request for relocating to a built up unit in “Views” i.e. another project of the Opposite Party.

9.         It was further stated that the Opposite Party gave numerous options to the complainants, to facilitate them (complainants) for both built up unit/flat and plot but they themselves kept on lingering the matter on one pretext of the other (Annexure R-2 colly.). It was further stated that as per the complainants’ request, Plot No.15 in Sector 99 was to be put on hold. It was further stated that complainants only sent scanned copy of cheque of Rs.5 Lacs but they never came forward/sent the original cheque and kept on lingering the matter. It was further stated that left with no option, the Opposite Party offered possession of original allotted plot on 23.1.2015 and asked the complainants to accept the same and pay the balance price. It was further stated that unit No.104-EP-89-305 still stood allotted in the name of the complainants and was never cancelled. 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.

10.       The complainants filed replication wherein, they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

11.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their joint affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

12.       The Opposite Party, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Sachin Kapoor, their Senior Manager (Legal), by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

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

14.       It is evident from the record, that Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.12.2013 for Plot No.104-EP-89-305 admeasuring 305 sq. yards, was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Party at Chandigarh. It is also evident that the total sale price of the said plot was Rs.71,31,150/- calculated at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per sq. yard. It is also evident from Clause 1 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement that the area of the plot and its location was tentative and subject to change till the final layout and demarcation of the plots in the project was approved by the Competent Authority. Admittedly, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.17,84,000/- to the Opposite Party being 25% of the total sale consideration of the plot, in question.  As per terms of Plot Buyer’s Agreement and payment plan opted by the complainants, the remaining 75% consideration of the plot in, question, was to be paid by the complainants on offer of possession  by the Opposite Party. As admitted by the complainants, Opposite Party offered possession on 23.1.2015. It is also evident from Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement that 15% of the total sale consideration constituted the earnest money. The complainants also took loan from the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) as is evident from letter dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure C-4).

15.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are consumers as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Opposite Party has specifically pleaded that the complainants purchased the plot, in question, solely for commercial purposes/speculation. However, the Opposite Party failed to bring, on record, any cogent and convincing evidence to corroborate this plea. As such, this objection of the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, stands rejected. 

16.       The next objection, raised by the Opposite Party, is as regards the existence of arbitration clause No.42 in the Buyer’s Agreement. With a view to appreciate the controversy, in   its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Act is 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 an arbitration clause, in the document, aforesaid, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, 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 (1996)6  SCC 385  and  C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. In this view of the matter, this objection of 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, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The Opposite Party has pleaded that since the complainants had paid Rs.17,82,877.50Ps, as such, the jurisdiction to try the complaint vests with the District Forum and  not with this Commission. On perusal of the relief clause, it reveals that the complainants, apart from seeking refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,82,877.50Ps also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. Moreover, the complainants, in alternative, have also sought possession of the originally allotted plot on discounted rates or in alternative, relocation of the originally allotted plot to Plot No.15 in Sector 99, Chandigarh. Thus, the sum total/value of the relief sought for by the complainants, in their complaint, exceeds the upper limit of Rs.20 lacs of the District Forum.. This Commission has, thus, the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Therefore, this objection of the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit is not sustainable, and the same stands rejected. 

18.         As regards objections of the Opposite Party regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant complaint, clearly Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed at Chandigarh on 10.12.2013. Since part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh, the complaint falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The objection of Opposite Party being devoid of merit is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and is therefore, rejected.          

19.         The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to what amount the complainants deposited and whether they are entitled to refund of the same. During arguments, the Counsel  for the complainants submitted that they (complainants) be refunded the 25% amount deposited. Admittedly, the complainants deposited an amount of Rs.17,82,877.50Ps, being 25% of the total sale consideration of the unit, in question, refund whereof has been sought by the complainants in the complaint. It is clearly evident from email dated 3.9.2014 that the complainants requested the Opposite Party to give them discount in the price of the plot as offered to on time payment buyers and to consider their case under that scheme and undertook to abide by the new scheme payment plan for balance payment. Subsequently vide email dated 8.9.2014 (Annexure C-11), the Opposite Party informed the complainants that it was not possible for the Opposite Party to consider their request for conversion of payment plan. Thereafter, vide email dated 8.9.2014, the complainants reciprocated that it was assured by the sales executive
of the Opposite Party that there would be possession after two years in Sector 104 and investment would be safe but the Opposite Party started selling the plots by giving discounts in the same sector. The complainants further stated in the said email dated 8.9.2014 that they were forced to sign the contract by the Opposite Party otherwise the later they would have forfeited the money and, as such, amount demanded by the Opposite Party was paid to avoid money loss. Vide this email, the complainants requested the Opposite Party to cancel the plot and refund the money paid with interest, otherwise to initiate legal action to secure the money. However, instead of acceding to their request, the Opposite Party vide email dated 9.9.2014 (Annexure C-12) offered the complainants an option for relocation in “The Views”. Further vide email dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure C-13), the Opposite Party asked the complainants to finalize the unit and complete the formalities. Subsequently, vide email dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure C-19), after discussion with the complainants, the Opposite Party put Plot No.15-EP in Sector 99 on hold and asked the complainants to send scanned cheque and release Plot No.EP-89 in Sector 104. Vide email dated 28.11.2014, the Opposite Party informed the complainants that further delay in process of finalizing the unit would lead to forfeiture of amount paid by them against unit No.89 in Sector 104. In lieu of this offer, the complainants gave their confirmation to release the originally allotted plot No.EP-89 in Sector 104 and showed their interest in Plot No.15 in Sector 99, vide email dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure C-20). Meanwhile, Opposite Party vide letter dated 23.1.2015 (Annexure C-25) gave intimation of possession of the earlier plot No.104-EP-89-305 and asked the complainants to remit an amount of Rs.63,35,975/- by 24.2.2015 and Rs.6,11,321.70Ps against stamp duty and registration charges. Subsequently vide email dated 1.2.2015, the complainants sent scanned copy of the couriered cheque in the sum of Rs.5 Lac, as replacement cheque for relocation of Plot No.89. Thereafter, the email dated 7.2.2015 (Annexure C-24) was sent by the complainants to the Opposite Party, which, is extracted hereunder:-

“From: neetigarg09 Date: 07/02/2015 18:38 (GMT+05:30)

To: CC:

Subject: Re: Interaction ID:104-EP-89-305/0017 (Unit Number: 104-EP-89-305)

Respected mam

As already you have confirmed relocation and as that time when we approached and demanded refund with interest.

You have offered relocation and we accepted it. So please as our money is taken from loan and as special case please you fulfill ur commitment.

And relocate and adjust our money as we have already given confirmation for release of plot no.89 in sector 104. So offering possession is immaterial and we not consider this offer of possession and not try to forfeit our money on this ground, and we find that is against justice.

As renowned developer it is tiny thing to solve our problem.

Please relook and give us relief.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Regards

Satyawati (widow and senior citizen and having serious medical conditions)

Neeti garg

Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal.”

20.         It is clear that when the complainants requested the Opposite Parties to cancel the plot and sought refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest vide email dated 8.9.2014 (Page 51), the Opposite Party did not refund the amount and rather gave an offer of relocation to the complainants. Further vide email dated 29.12.2014, on the asking of the Opposite Party, the complainants gave their confirmation to release the unit No.89 in Sector 104, whereafter, the Opposite Party put unit No.15-EP in Sector 109 on hold. Subsequently, the Opposite Party backed out and gave intimation of possession of originally allotted unit No.89 vide letter dated 23.1.2015 and raised demand. On 8.9.2014, when the complainants requested the Opposite Party to cancel the plot and refund the amount alongwith interest,  the same amounted to rescinding the contract. Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that since the complainants have sought refund of the amount deposited, Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.12.2013 shall be attracted and, in terms thereof, 15% of the total sale consideration was forfeitable. Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure C-2), reads as under:-

“2(f) The Allottee(s) has entered into this Buyer’s Agreement on the condition that out of the amounts paid/payable by the Allottee(s) towards the Total Sale Price, the Company shall treat a sum equivalent to 15% as Earnest Money. However, if the Allottee(s) chooses not to sign the Agreement, or chooses to cancel the Plot, in that event the entire amount of 15% of the Total Sale Price shall stand forfeited and the balance if any shall be refunded to the Allottee(s). However, after signing of this Buyer’s Agreement, in order to ensure the fulfilment, by the Allottee(s) of the terms and conditions as contained in this Buyer’s Agreement and the Application Form signed by the Alottee(s) and in the event of the Allottee(s) failure to perform their obligations and or terms and conditions under the Agreement, or in the event of failure of the Allottee(s) to sign  and or return this Agreement in its original form to the company within a period of 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt by theAllttee(s), the Allottee(s) hereby authorizes the Company to forfeit as its sole discretion, the Earnest Money as stated above, along with any other amounts due and payable including but not limited to, any interest paid, due or payable or any other amount of non refundable nature. The Allottee(s) agrees and undertakes that the condition of forfeiture of the Earnest Money shall remain valid and effective till the execution and registration of the ale Deed/Conveyance Deed for the Plot and the Allottee(s) hereby further authorizes the Company  to resort to such forfeiture. The Allottee(s) agrees that the conditions for forfeiture of Earnest Money with the processing  fee, any interest paid, due or payable, any other amount of a non-refundable nature including brokerage paid by the Company to the brokers (in case of booking done through a broker) shall remain valid and effective till the execution and registration of the conveyance deed for the said Plot and that the Allottee(s) hereby authorizes the company to effect such forfeiture without any notice to the Allottee(s) and the Allottees(s) has agreed to this condition to indicate his/her/their/its commitment to faithfully fulfil all the terms and conditions contained in his/her Application and this Buyer’s Agreement.”

No doubt, in the afore-extracted Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure C-2), it was made clear that if the complainants chose not to sign the Agreement or chose to cancel the plot, then 15% of the total sale price was to be forfeited and the rest of the amount was refundable to them. As stated above, the complainants, sought refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest vide email dated 8.9.2014 (Page 51), which amounted to surrender of the plot, in question, and, as already observed above, the Agreement between the parties, stood rescinded. However, in our considered opinion, fixing 15% of sale consideration, as earnest money, and forfeiture thereof, can be said to be unreasonable and unconscionable. Since such a condition in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure C-2) is unilateral, unreasonable and unconscionable, it can be said that by incorporating the same, the Opposite Party indulged into unfair trade practice. A similar question arose in DLF Ltd. Vs. Bhagwanti Narula, Revision Petition No.3860 of 2014, decided on 06.01.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein as per the Agreement, 20% of the sale price of the premises was to collectively constitute the earnest money, which was to be forfeited, in case, the allottee made a default in payment of instalments(s) and asked for refund of the amount deposited. Such Clause came up for interpretation, before the National Commission, in the aforesaid case. The National Commission, ultimately, held that an Agreement having forfeiture Clause of more than 10% of the sale consideration, would be invalid, as it would be contrary to the established legal principle that only a reasonable amount could be forfeited, in the event of default, on the part of the buyer. In the aforesaid case, the National Commission placed reliance on Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 704, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted the contention that, in appropriate case, the Consumer Forum, without trenching upon acute disputed questions of fact, may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant relief, though, each case depends upon its own facts. Ultimately, the National Commission, in the aforesaid case, held that the amount exceeding 10% of the total sale price, could not be forfeited, by the seller. Relying upon, what has been held above, in DLF Ltd.’s case (supra), in our considered opinion, Clause 2(f) contained in Annexure C-2 providing for forfeiting 15% of the sale consideration, being unreasonable and unconscionable, amounted to unfair trade practice. It is, therefore, held that the Opposite Party is only entitled to forfeit 10% of the sale consideration of the plot, and not 15% of the same.

21.              The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to what amount the complainants would be entitled, in such circumstances. Thus, as held above, only 10% of the sale consideration could be forfeited. The total sale consideration as per Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-2) was Rs.71,31,510/- including External Development Charges (EDC) and Preferential Location Charges (PLC). The complainants, in their complaint, have sought refund of the amount deposited by them viz. Rs.17,82,877.50Ps apart from other reliefs. The Opposite Parties could forfeit only 10% of the total sale consideration viz. Rs.71,31,510/-. Therefore, the amount of forfeiture shall come to Rs.7,13,151/-. The complainants are, thus, entitled to Rs.10,69,726.50Ps i.e. (Rs.17,82,877.50Ps minus (-) Rs.7,13,151.00). By not refunding this amount, the Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service.

22.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to any compensation or not. The complainants had made payment in the sum of Rs.17,82,877/-, which was undoubtedly their hard earned money. For rescinding the contract, the complainants stand penalized by forfeiting 10% of the total sale price in the sum of Rs.7,13,151/-. When the complainants vide email dated 8.9.2014 (page 51) sought refund, Opposite Party offered relocation but did not honor the same and prolonged the issue. By not refunding the amount on the request of the complainant the Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service. The complainants have thus, certainly suffered physical harassment and mental agony at the hands of the Opposite Party, for which, they need to be suitably compensated. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, would be just and adequate, to meet the ends of justice.       

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

24.        For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Party is held liable and directed in the following manner:-

(i)   To refund the amount of Rs.10,69,726.50Ps  i.e. [Rs.17,82,877.50Ps (amount paid) minus (-) Rs.7,13,151.00 being 10% of Rs.71,31,510.], to the complainants, alongwith interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), to the complainants, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii) Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) shall have the first charge, on the amount to be refunded, to the complainants, by the Opposite Parties, to the extent, the amount is due to it, against the complainants as it (HDFC) advanced loan in their (complainants) favour for part payment of the price of plot, in question, as is evident from letter dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure C-4).

 (iv) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, to the complainants.

 (v)  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) above, with interest @15% per annum, instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of default, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.

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

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

Pronounced

June  5   , 2015.

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad