Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/62/2022

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Bhardwaj & Pranab Bansal Adv.

28 Dec 2022

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Complaint case No.	:	62 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	25.07.2022
Date of Decision	:	28.12.2022

 

Bhupinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Jagjit Singh, resident of House No. 321, The palms, Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions, New Chandigarh-140901, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

•  

Versus

 

1. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C,Chandigarh 160017.
2. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Site Office:- Village Mullanpur Garibdas, PGI Road, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
3. Tarninder Singh Director/Authorized Signatory of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017.
4. Narinderbir Singh Director/Authorized Signatory of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017.
5. Dhanwant Singh Sidhu Director/Authorized Signatory of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office: Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017.
6. Sarabjeet Kaur Director/Authorized Signatory of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office:- Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017.

mdofficemultitech2013@gmail.com

nbs@manoharrealty.com

…..Opposite Parties

BEFORE:       JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                      MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Present:-       Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Nishant Jindal, Advocate proxy for Sh.Anil Mehta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                    The complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver actual physical possession of the plot bearing no.1148, located in their project named ‘The Palm’, Village Mullanpur District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, against which he has paid substantial amount of Rs.47,58,563/- out of Rs.49,66,500/- for the period starting from 2011 to 2017; alongwith compensation for the period of delay etc. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of booking of the said plot, its size was 250 square yards and based on this size, its basic sale price was  fixed at Rs.45 lacs i.e. @18000/- per square yard, yet, later on, it was unilaterally decreased to 225.75 square yards but its basic sale price was not decreased by the opposite parties. It has been further stated that though as per clause 4.1 of the agreement dated 15.12.2017, Annexure C-3, the opposite parties committed to deliver possession of the plot in question, latest by 14.06.2020 yet, they offered possession of the same, vide letter dated 22.11.2019, Annexure C-14, which was nothing but only paper possession because basic amenities were not provided at the project site. It has been further stated that even various  terms and conditions contained in the said agreement qua non-construction charges to be obtained by the opposite parties instead which were payable to the Government Authorities; obtaining of occupation and completion certificates by the complainant instead of, by the opposite parties; demand of basic sale price in contravention of terms and conditions of the application form which was got filled at the time of booking of the plot in question etc. were illegal and arbitrary. It has been averred that in the absence of complete possession, the complainant is unable to built house, which has resulted into hardships. It has been stated that the complainant is also facing a same problem with regard to another plot bearing no.321 purchased in the project of the opposite parties, consumer complaint against which is pending adjudication before the District Commission, Mohali. Hence this complaint has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

   “…… (i). To handover the possession of plot no.1148 with all basic amenities after obtaining the completion and occupation certificate along with proper demarcation and levelling without demanding any charges/consideration as the entire payment as per agreement has been paid by the complainant.

 

(ii). To provide all amenities such as road, street light, parks along with all amenities as advertised in the brochure Annexure/Exhibit C-19.

 

(iii). To refund an amount of Rs.2,43,563/- received in excess along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of initial deposit till realisation.

 

(iv). To pay interest @12% on the deposited amount i.e. 47,58,563/- to the complainant from the agreed date of possession i.e. 14.12.2019 till handing over the physical possession after obtaining the completion certificate and occupation certificate by the opposite parties from GMADA/competent authority.

 

(v). To declare the terms and conditions which are against the interest of the complainant being null and void being unfair as proven from the documentary evidence of the present case.

 

(vi). To pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss, caused to the complainants, and deficiency in service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OPS.

 

(vii). To grant additional relief if any, as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

 

(viii). To pay cost of litigation of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant.…..”

 

2.           His claim has been contested by the opposite parties on numerous grounds, inter alia:-
   1. this complaint is barred by limitation;
   2. that because admittedly the complainant has purchased two units in the project of the opposite parties, he did not fall within the definition of consumer:
   3. that the complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of provisions of Section 47  and 49 of the CPA 2019 to approach directly to this Commission challenging terms and conditions of the agreement, which infact had been accepted by him and were never challenged at any stage before filing this complaint;
   4. that since only an amount of Rs.47,58,563/- has been paid by the complainant in respect of the unit in question, which falls below Rs.50 lacs, as such, this Commission did not vest with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint;
   5. that possession of the plot in question with all basic amenities has been offered before the committed date i.e. vide letter dated 22.11.2019, Annexure C-14;
   6. that as far as basic sale price of the plot is concerned, the complainant is wrongly calculating the same;

 

3.           On merits, it has been stated that application for sanction of the project in question was moved by the opposite parties on 12.09.2011 with the Competent Authorities; that the project was approved on 22.03.2013 and the formal agreement was signed with the Government of Punjab on 14.06.2013; that thereafter some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018, vide supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016 executed with the Government; that later on exemption from the applicability of provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (PAPR Act) stood granted by the Government on 25.01.2017; that the Competent Authority has  granted extension for completion of the project upto 31.12.2022; that all the basic amenities such as sewerage, water, electricity etc. have been provided at the project site. However, it has been fairly admitted by the opposite parties in para no.10 to 13 of ‘reply on merits’, that they have already applied for partial completion certificate for which the Competent Authorities are taking considerable time for issuance of the same. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied being wrong.
4.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated the  averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in the written reply of the opposite parties.
5.           The parties led evidence in support of their case and also filed written arguments/submissions.
6.           We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments/submissions filed by them, very carefully.
7.           First, we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite parties with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, it may be stated here that the provisions of Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (under which this complaint has been filed) speak about the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is necessary to reproduce relevant provisions of Section 47 of CPA 2019 as under:-

“………47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

 

1. to entertain—

 

1. complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
2. complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees; appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State…
3. xxxxxx…..….”

 

A bare perusal of Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) provides that the State Commission shall also have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees. Definition of “unfair contract” has been provided under Clause 2 (46) of CPA 2019 as under:-

 

(46) "unfair contract" means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:—

 

(i) requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the performance of contractual obligations; or

 

(ii) imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract thereof which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract; or

 

(iii) refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty; or

 

(iv) entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without reasonable cause; or

 

(v) permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer, without his consent; or

 

(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage….”

 

In the present case, admittedly, the complainant has challenged various terms andconditions mentioned in the agreement dated 15.12.2017, Annexure C-3. We have also perused the said agreement and found that the date of application therein has been mentioned as 15.12.2017, whereas, on the other hand, the date of submission of Application Annexure C-1 was 28.02.2011. Similarly, in this application, the size of plot, for which the complainant had applied for, is 250 square yards @18000/- per square yard, yet, in clause 2.1 of the agreement, it has been mentioned as 225.75 square yards. Furthermore, even the price of the plot inquestion also stood increased by the opposite parties, in respect of the plot in question i.e. from 18000/- to 22000/- per square yard. It is further found in clause 2.12 that though in case of delay in making payment penal interest ranging from 12% p.a. to 18% p.a. is payable by the allottee, yet, no such clause on equitable grounds, for payment of interest on the deposited amount, in case of delay in delivery of possession is found mentioned in this agreement. Similarly, there are number of other terms and conditions which clearly goes to show that the same areone sided, harsh, oppressive and unconscionable to the complainant. In our considered opinion, the act of thrusting the said one sided, harsh, oppressive and unconscionable conditions upon the complainant, amounts to imposing upon the complainant unreasonable charge, obligation and condition which had put him to disadvantage. The case of the complainant thus falls under Section 2 (46) (vi) of CPA 2019.Thisact and conduct of opposite parties amounts to effect of permitting them to assign the contract to the detriment of the complainant, without his consent and also imposing upon him unreasonable charge, obligation and condition to put him to disadvantage. Thus, this act and conduct of opposite parties also covered the provisions of Section 2 (46) (v) and (vi) of CPA 2019, which gives reason to this Commission to say that it was a case of ‘unfair contract’. In this view of the matter, objection taken by the opposite parties regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission stands rejected and it is held that this complaint is maintainable under Section (2) 46 and 47of CPA 2019. 

In this view of the matter, the application bearing no.620 of 2022 moved by the opposite parties for dismissing this complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, stands dismissed with no order as to cost, having been rendered infructuous.

8.           Now we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. It may be stated here that there is nothing on the record that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the plot, in question was purchased by him by way of investment with a view to resell the same as and when there was escalation in the prices thereof. On the other hand the complainant in his complaint has clearly stated that the plots, in question have been purchased by him for his residential purpose as well as for  his family members. It is significant to mention here that a person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he has purchased more than one house or plot.  Separate plots may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members.  A person may buy two or three houses, if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Since the opposite parties has levelled allegations against the complainant, the onus lay upon them, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which they failed to do so. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, under similar circumstances, in  a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

 “ In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots.  A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots.  In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members.  A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city.  A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house.  Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose.  In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra &Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

                   The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant thus falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under the Act. Such an objection taken by the opposite parties therefore, being devoid of merit is rejected. 

9.           A bare perusal of record reveals that vide application dated 28.02.2011, Annexure C-1, the complainant had booked a plot measuring 250 square yards @18000/- per square yard i.e. totaling to Rs.45 lacs in the project of the opposite parties. It is also coming out from this  application that over and above this amount, the complainant was liable to pay miscellaneous charges towards EDC and IDC. However, it is also not in dispute that thereafter, for the first time, it was only vide agreement dated 15.12.2017, Annexure C-3 that the size of the plot in question was decreased to 225.75 square yards from 250 square yards. However, surprisingly, the rate of plot has been arbitrarily increased to 22000/- per square yard from 18000/- square yard. In our considered opinion, this act of the opposite parties amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice because once they have admitted to allot him a plot measuring 250 square yards, and, thereafter, for whatever reason, the size thereof was decreased to 225.75 square yards, they should not have increased the price thereof. Thus, it is held that the opposite parties cannot charge the basic sale price of the plot in question over and above Rs.18000/- per square yard for 225.75 square yards.
10.           Now coming to the possession of the plot in question, admittedly, as per clause 4.1 of the agreement, Annexure C-3 possession was to be delivered on or before 14.12.2019 (24 months from the date of allotment i.e. 15.12.2017 as mentioned in clause 1 (vi) of the agreement and that too after obtaining occupation and completion certificates as mentioned in clause 4.2 of the said agreement, within a grace period of 6 months therefrom. Thus, now we have to decide, as to whether, the possession so allegedly offered by the opposite parties in respect of plot in question vide letter dated 22.11.2019, Annexure C-14 could be said to be genuine offer or not; it may be stated here that  it is well settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of infrastructure and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/certificates/ approvals have been obtained in respect of the project in question, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. It is also a settled law that before offering possession of a unit/plot  in a project, the project proponent is legally bound to complete the construction, development and basic amenities at the project site and also to obtain occupation and completion certificates from the competent authorities. Section 14 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA") deals with responsibility of the builder/promoter to obtain completion and occupation certificates from the competent authority, which reads as under:

14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-

(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and

 

(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."

 

It is significant to mention here that the candid admission of the opposite parties in para no.10 to 13 of ‘reply on merits’, to the effect that they have applied for partial completion certificate for which the Competent Authorities are taking considerable time for issuance of the same is sufficient to hold that the complainant was not obliged to take possession of the plot so offered vide letter dated 22.11.2019, Annexure C-14, as it was offered in the absence of completion certificate.  However,  till the date of arguments also, copy of completion certificate had not been  placed on record by the opposite parties, meaning thereby that the same  was not  obtained by them till that date.  Thus, mere sending of offer of possession letter dated 22.11.2019, Annexure C-14, in the absence of completion certificate, in no way can be termed as genuine offer of possession. Our this view is supported by the observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in Shri Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. Versus M/s Sahajanand HI TECH Construction Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No. 346 of 2014, decided on 06 May 2016, wherein, it was held as under:-

“………The date by which the flat was to be offered for the purpose of fitouts cannot be said to be the date for handing over the possession to the purchaser since neither the builder is under an obligation to complete the construction in all respect by that date nor can the purchaser occupy the flat at the stage of offer of fitouts.  Section (2) (i) of MOFA mandates the promotor not to allow any persons to enter into possession until a completion certificate is duly given by the authorities.  It also mandates the purchaser not to take possession of a flat until such completion certificate has been duly given.  Therefore, the date on which the flat is made available for fitouts cannot be said to be the date for delivery of possession of the flat.  Such a date, by law, cannot be a date earlier than the date on which the completion certificate/occupancy certificate is issued by the concerned authority…..” 

 

11.           The Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) also, categorically held that legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of completion certificate issued by the competent authority. It was held in Para No.5 as follows:

5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at any time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat. The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite completion certificate had not been obtained by that date......."

         

In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the complainant was not obliged to take over possession of the plot in question, offered without completion certificate.

12.           Now the question arises, as to what compensation should be granted to the complainant, for delay in delivery of possession of the plot to him and for what period?. It may be stated here that Consumer Protection Act has been made to safeguard consumer rights. This Act is regarded as the 'Magna carta' (everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial) in the field of consumer protection for checking unfair trade practices, ‘defects in goods’ and ‘deficiencies in services’ and it works and protects consumers even in situations where they do not know their rights. At the same time, it is relevant to mention here that, in the absence of a specific prayer, it is still open to the Courts/Foras/Tribunals to grant a relief which is appropriate, justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Our this view is supported by the  findings given by the Hon’ble National Commission in BPTP Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Sharma, First Appeal No. 1516 of 2019 decided on 23 Dec 2019. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“……With regard to the objection of the Developer that the Complainants are not entitled for the relief other than prayed for in the Complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission in catena of judgments has laid down the principal that in the absence of a specific prayer, it is still open to the Courts to grant a relief which is appropriate, justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case…...” 

Failure of the opposite parties to provide complete/effective possession of the plot within the stipulated period amounts to deficiency in service. It is also matter of common parlance that for purchasing the plot(s)/unit(s), the purchasers take loans from their family members, relatives and friends or financial institutions. In some cases, the purchasers live on rent in the absence of timely delivery of possession. On account of delay in actual delivery of possession within the stipulated period, the complainant suffered mental agony, hardships and financial loss. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022, the Hon’ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“……Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to pay interest @9% w.e.f. 31.03.2014, i.e., the expected date of delivery of the possession, on the amount deposited by the respective Complainant till 02.09.2017, i.e., the date on which the possession of the Flat was offered by the Opposite Party Developer, within two months from today.  The Opposite Party Developer shall also pay cost of ₹25,000/- to the Complainants in each case.   Since we have awarded delay compensation till the date of offer of possession instead of actual physical possession of the Flat, the Opposite Party Developer shall not be entitled for any delay interest from the date of offer of possession till the date of payment made by the Complainant for taking physical possession of the Flat.…..”

 

In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. In the present case, the complainant has purchased the unit in question, as far as back in 2011 and remained empty handed for more than 10 years and has to approach this Commission for redressal of his grievance. The opposite parties  have played fast and loose with the complainant and have caused harassment and mental agony to him, which is unacceptable and this practice needs to be deprecated. In our considered opinion, if we grant interest @9% p.a. to the complainant on the entire amount deposited by him, from the due date of possession i.e. 14.12.2019 onwards till delivery of possession thereof, that will meet the ends of justice.

13.           Since, it has been held that the possession so offered was mere a paper possession as it was not accompanied with completion certificate and actual physical possession complete in all respects has not been delivered till date, as such, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant to file this complaint, in view of law laid down in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein it was held that when actual possession of the units/plots is not delivered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. Objection raised in this regard also stands rejected.
14.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To deliver actual physical possession of the plot in question,  measuring 225.75 square yards (@18000/- per square yards), in the project in question, to the complainant, complete in all respects, after obtaining completion certificate from the competent Authority, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of EDC, IDC and Govt. levies and also balance basic sale price @Rs.18,000/- per square yard only, as explained above.           However, it is made clear that in case, after such adjustments, still the opposite parties had received excess amount from the complainant, the same shall be refunded to him alongwith interest@9% p.a. from 15.12.2017 onwards till realization. 
    2. To pay to the complainant, interest @9% p.a. on the entire amount deposited, starting from 14.12.2019  till 31.12.2022, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainant.
    3. To pay to the complainant, interest @9% p.a. on the amounts deposited, w.e.f. 01.01.2023, onwards (per month), by the 10^th of the following month till actual delivery of physical possession of the unit, complete in all respects. 
    4. To pay to the complainant, compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him  mental agony and harassment and also for deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced

28.12.2022

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Rg.