Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/124/2015

Shri Chandan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj,Adv.

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	124 of 2015
Date of Institution	11.06.2015
Date of Decision	03.08.2015

1. Shri Chandan Sharma son of Shri Jatinder Sharma
2. Smt.Sikha Sharma wife of Shri Chandan Sharma, earlier both were resident of House No.32, Shresth Housing Complex – 3, Balaji – II, Zirakpur, now shifted to House No.H-3/19-D Krishana Nagar, New Delhi – 51.

                                                        ….. Complainants.

                                Versus

1. M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.183-184, First Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s India bulls Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.337-338, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

                                                ….. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Party No.1 proposed to develop a residential township situated in and around village Sante Majra on Kharar Landran Road, District Mohali. The complainants were informed that it (Opposite Party No.1) had obtained all requisite permissions from the concerned authority. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 started giving advertisements through newspapers and in view thereof the complainants visited its office and submitted an application on 14 – 18.06.2011 for the allotment of a residential apartment in the proposed Group Housing to be known as “Orchard County” situated on Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab. It was stated that the complainants were apprised that possession of the apartments would be delivered within a period of 24 months. At the time of submission of application for allotment of the apartment, it was informed by Opposite Party No.1 regarding the scheme “No Pre-EMI Interest” and subsequently it issued a letter dated 27.08.2011 (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that in case of any delay in the offer of possession beyond 24 months, the Pre-EMI interest for the unit was to be borne by Opposite Party No.1 till the offer of possession and it was to be paid directly to the financer. Thereafter, on these terms, the complainants were allotted apartment No.302, 3rd floor, measuring 1701 sq. ft. in tower No.5 vide allotment letter dated 14.06.2011 (In fact 25.08.2011) (Annexure C-2). They also deposited a sum of Rs.6,15,042/- including the booking amount, vide receipts (Annexure C-3 and C-4). It was further stated that the complainants got approved loan amount of Rs.29,75,000/- from Opposite Party No.2, and, thereafter, the same was disbursed to Opposite Party No.1. Copy of the Tripartite Agreement dated 30.08.2011, which was executed between the parties, is Annexure C-6. It was further stated that the complainants paid a sum of Rs.35,90,042/-, out of the total sale price of Rs.39,97,350/-, which includes PLC.

2.             It was further stated that the complainants received a letter dated 16.11.2013 (Annexure C-7) from Opposite Party No.1, regarding increase of area. In view of the mutual settlement, Opposite Party No.1 was depositing Pre-EMI interest with the financer – Opposite Party No.2 upto February, 2014 and all of a sudden, the complainants received a letter dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure C-8), whereby, they were asked to take possession of the apartment. Thereafter, the complainants immediately sent an email, whereby, they asked Opposite Party No.1 to supply the Completion and Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority but neither it supplied the same nor gave any reply. Copies of the emails are Annexure C-11 (Colly.). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 stopped paying the Pre-EMI interest to Opposite Party No.2, since March, 2014 and the complainants being Bank employees, in order to avoid being defaulters, were depositing the Pre-EMI interest @Rs.27,892/- per month regularly, which was the liability of Opposite Party No.1 and they (complainants) requested to refund the payment alongwith interest. It was further stated that the complainants received a letter (reminder) dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure C-10) regarding offer of possession. As such, they (complainants) immediately visited the site and found that neither the apartment was ready for use nor Opposite Party No.1 was having Completion and Occupation Certificate upto March, 2015.

3.             It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 vide its letters dated 13.11.2013 (In fact 16.11.2013) and 06.05.2014 stated that 51 sq. ft. area had been increased and raised a demand of Rs.1,19,850/- on account of the increased area, which was totally illegal. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 raised illegal demand of Rs.29,100/- on account of interest. Therefore, a request was made to Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the demand notice, but no response had been received from Opposite Party No.1 in respect of legal notice dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure C-12). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

4.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1, stated that the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumers, as the said investment in the property made by them (complainants) was purely for commercial purposes and speculative investments. It was admitted that the complainants were allotted apartment No.302, 3^rd floor, tower No.5 in the Orchard County, Kharar – Landran Road, Mohali having super built up area of approx. 1701 sq. ft., in the project of the replying Opposite Party vide allotment letter dated 25.08.2011, for a total sale consideration of Rs.39,97,350/-. It was further stated that each and every page of the allotment letter was duly signed by the complainants after gong through the same. It was further stated that as per Clause 11 of the allotment letter, possession of the residential apartment was likely to be delivered by Opposite Party No.1 within a reasonable period, from the date of execution of the Agreement/Allotment letter, subject to force majeure circumstances, and on receipt of all payments punctually as per the agreed terms and on receipt of completed payment of the basic sale price and other charges due and payable upto the date of possession, according to the payment plan applicable to the allottee. It was further stated that in the absence of any time period having been specified in the allotment letter for handing over possession of the unit/apartment. It was apparent that time was not the essence of contract. It was further stated that as held in a plethora of judgments rendered by this Commission as well as by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a period of three years had been taken as a reasonable period for offering possession of the unit. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was required to offer possession of the allotted unit on or before 25.08.2014. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 upon having completed construction of the unit, in question, submitted an application dated 27.11.2013 to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) for issuance of an Occupation Certificate (Annexure R-1), which was issued by the Competent Authority on 18.03.2015 (Annexure R-12). It was further stated that the statutory provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 did not prohibit the developer to offer possession of the unit before receipt of the Occupation Certificate.

5.             It was further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid application, Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure R-2) had offered possession of the unit to the complainants.  It was further stated that on account of failure of the complainants to come forward to take possession of the unit/apartment, another letter dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure R-4) was issued by Opposite Party No.1 while informing the complainants that the apartment was ready for possession. The replying Opposite Party also attached photographs (Annexure R-6).  It was further stated that despite issuance of the aforementioned letters dated 04.03.2014 and 06.05.2014, the complainants did not come forward to take possession of the allotted unit and did not even make payment of the balance amount outstanding against them, as indicated in the letter dated 06.05.2014, which carried with it the statement of account, whereby, the total amount outstanding against the complainants was calculated at Rs.8,50,357/-, apart from the interest free maintenance and security deposit of Rs.26,000/-.   It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 offered possession of the allotted unit/apartment, complete in all respects, well within the reasonable period of three years, from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party had paid pre-EMI interest to Opposite Party No.2, in pursuance of the Tripartite Agreement dated 30.08.2011 till February, 2014 and had stopped payment on account thereof w.e.f. March, 2014, on account of the fact that vide letter dated 04.03.2014, possession of the allotted unit had been offered to the complainants, and, as such, there was no further liability on the part of the replying Opposite Party to pay any amount on account of pre-EMI interest beyond February, 2014.

6.             It was further stated that the complainants while disputing their liability to pay the additional amount on account of increase in the super area of the allotted unit, tried to wriggle out of the sacrosanct and salient terms and conditions incorporated, in the allotment letter, which was legally impermissible. It was further stated that Clauses 9 and 10 of the allotment letter are very clear, whereby, the complainants had given their consent to any variation, addition, alteration, deletion and modification in the plans, designs and specifications. It was further stated that perusal of the aforesaid clauses revealed that the plans shown to the complainants were tentative in nature and were subject to any variations.  It was further stated that in view of Clauses 9 and 10 of the allotment letter, Opposite Party No.1 was entitled to charge an amount for the increased super area of 51 sq. ft. and it did not commit any illegality in doing so. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party had even called upon the complainants to ascertain the factum qua increase in the super area of the allotted unit, as per the Measurement Book (Annexure R-8) maintained by the Architect/Site Engineer, which was available at the site office for inspection and clarification. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice

7.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2, stated that the dispute involved in the present complaint had no concern with the replying Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainants approached the replying Opposite Party for availing of a Home Loan facility for a sum of Rs.31,75,000/- for purchasing a residential unit in the project of Opposite Party No.1 and also mortgaged the said residential unit with the replying Opposite Party for securing the loan amount. It was further stated that the loan facility was availed of @10.75% floating rate of interest. It was further stated that Tripartite Agreement was also executed between the parties and in terms of the said Agreement, disbursement of loan amount was to be made by the replying Opposite Party, as per the stage of construction of the aforementioned residential unit. Therefore, as on date, an amount of Rs.29,75,133/- was disbursed. It was further stated that as per Clause 3 of the Tripartite Agreement, the complainants were liable to pay Pre-EMI to the replying Opposite Party till the commencement of EMI. Copies of the Loan Agreement and Tripartite Agreement are Annexure OP-2/1 & OP-2/2. It was further stated that the dispute regarding obtaining the Completion and Occupation Certificate from the competent authority, was between the complainants and Opposite Party No.1.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

8.             The complainants, filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party No.1, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1. 

9.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

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

11.            Admittedly, the complainants were allotted apartment No.302, 3^rd floor, measuring 1701 sq. ft. in tower No.5 in the project of Opposite Party No.1 and the same was financed by Opposite Party No.2. It is also the admitted fact that the total price of the unit, in question, was Rs.39,97,350/-, out of which, the complainants have already paid an amount of Rs.35,90,042/-.

12.            The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants fall within the definition of consumers or not? The Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the investment made by the complainants in the property was purely for commercial purpose because the offer of possession was given to them on 04.03.2014 but till date they (complainants) did not start habituating in the residential unit, in question, which proved beyond doubt that the said property was bought by them merely for speculation and not for personal use. On the other hand, complainants stated in para No.1 of the complaint that they were residing in House No.32, Shresth Housing Complex-3/19-D Krishana Nagar, New Delhi-51 and copy of the Rent Agreement is also attached as Annexure C-1. So, we are of the view that the allegation of Opposite Party No.1 that the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumers is without substance. The unit, which was allotted, in favour of the complainants, is a residential one. Opposite Party No.1 did not allot the booth, where the complainants were to run commercial activity.  No evidence was produced by Opposite Party No.1, that the complainants are property dealers, who deal in the sale and purchase of the property, and, as such, they purchased the unit, in question, for the purpose of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation, in the prices of real estate. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complainants availed of the services of Opposite Party No.1, for consideration, for the purpose of allotment of the unit, in question, for the purpose of their residence, and therefore, they fall within the definition of consumers, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected. 

13.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, Opposite Party No.1 offered possession to the complainants within the reasonable period. The answer, to this, is in the affirmative. As per the complainants, they received a letter dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure C-8), whereby, they were asked to take possession of the apartment. They (complainants) sent an email to Opposite Party No.1 to supply the Completion and Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, but it failed to supply the same. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 drew our attention to Clause 11 of the allotment letter, which reads as under :-

                   ^{“11. THAT the possession of the said premises is likely to be delivered by the company to the apartment allottee within a reasonable period from the date of this agreement subject to force majeure circumstances, & on receipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms and on receipt of completed payment of the basic sale price and other charges due and payable up to the date of possession according to the payment plan applicable to him. The Company on completion of the construction shall issue final call notice to the Apartment Allottee who shall within 30 days thereof, remit all dues and take possession of the Apartment. In the event of his failure to take possession for any reason whatsoever, he shall be deemed to have taken possession of the allotted unit for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit, but the actual physical possession shall be given on payment of all outstanding payments as demanded by the Company. The Allottee would be liable to pay holding charge @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month if he fails to take possession within 30 days from the date of issue of offer of possession.”}

A perusal of Clause 11 itself makes it clear that the complainants were told that possession of the said premises was likely to be delivered by the Company to them within a reasonable period from the date of the Agreement.  We are of the opinion that a period of three years from the date of execution of the Agreement could be said to be reasonable for delivery of possession. We are of the view that Opposite Party No.1, was required to offer possession at least after conclusion of three years from the date of allotment i.e. by 25.08.2014.  Accordingly, the offer of possession of the unit was made to the complainants vide letter dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure R-2) and, thereafter, vide letter dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure R-4) but they (complainants) did not come forward to take possession of the unit, stating that Opposite Party No.1 had not procured the required Occupation and Completion Certificate. However, Opposite Party No.1 had already applied for the issuance of an Occupation Certificate vide application dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure R-1) to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), which was issued by the Competent Authority on 18.03.2015 (Annexure R-12). Further, the statutory provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 did not prohibit the developer to offer possession of the unit, before receipt of the Occupation Certificate. Moreover, the complainants had filed the complaint before this Commission on 11.06.2015, before which, Opposite Party No.1 had already obtained Occupation Certificate from the competent authority i.e. on 18.03.2015. So, we are of the considered opinion that there was no fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1 for offering possession to the complainants, in time.

14.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to any pre-EMI interest. No doubt, Opposite Party No.1 offered possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants vide letter dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure R-2) through Regd. Post but on account of failure of the complainants to come forward to take possession of the unit, it (Opposite Party No.1) sent another letter dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure R-4) informing them (complainants) that their unit/apartment was ready for possession. It is, no doubt, true that Opposite Party No.1 also paid pre-EMI interest to Opposite Party No.2, in pursuance of the Tripartite Agreement dated 30.08.2011 till February, 2014 but, thereafter, it stopped payment because it (Opposite Party No.1) had already offered possession of the unit to the complainants. So, we are of the considered view that since possession of the allotted unit was offered to the complainants on 04.03.2014, there was no further liability on the part of Opposite Party No.1, to pay any amount on account of pre-EMI interest beyond February, 2014. 

15.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, Opposite Party No.1 rightly charged for increase in super area from the complainants. The answer, to this question, is in the affirmative. No doubt, it is clearly mentioned in the allotment letter dated 25.08.2011 (at page No.30) that super built up area was approx. (sq. ft.) 1701. Even Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 16.11.2013  (Annexure C-7) informed the complainants regarding increase in the super area of the allotted unit from 1701 sq. ft. to 1751 sq. ft. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the plans shown to the complainants were tentative, in nature, and were subject to any variations. He also drew our attention to Clauses 9 and 10 of the allotment letter dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure C-2), which reads as under :-

“9. THAT the Apartment allottee has accepted the plans, designs, specifications shown to him which are tentative and are kept at the company’s office and agrees that Company may effect such variations, additions, alterations, deletion and modifications therein as it may, in its sole discretion deemed appropriate and fit or as may be done by any competent authority and the apartment allottee hereby gives his consent to such variation/addition/alteration/deletion and modification. The Apartment Allottee has also accepted the specifications and information as to the material to be used and features in the construction of apartment as set out in the brochure/in the annexure to this agreement, which are also tentative and the company may make such variations and modifications therein, as it may, in its sole discretion, deem fit and proper or may be done by any competent authority and the apartment allottee gives his consent to such variations and modifications.

10. THAT the Company shall, under normal conditions, compete the construction of “Orchard County” as per the said plans and specifications seen and accepted by the Apartment Allottee (with additional floors for Apartments if permissible) with such additions, deletions, alterations, modifications in the layout, building plans, change in number, dimensions, height, size, area or change of entire scheme the Company may consider necessary or may be required by any competent authority to be made in them or any of them. To implement all or any of these changes, supplementary allotment letter, if necessary will be executed by the company. If as a result of the above alteration etc., there is either reduction or increase in the super area of the said premises or its location, no claim, monetary or otherwise will be raised or accepted except that the original agreed rate per sq mt/sq ft. and other charges will be applicable for the changed area i.e. at the same rate at which the apartment was registered/booked or as the company may decide and as a consequence of such reduction or increase in the super area, the company shall be liable to refund without interest only the extra basic price and other pro rata charges recovered or shall be entitled to recover the additional basic price and other proportionate charges without interest as the case may be. If for any reason the company is not in a position to allot the property applied for, the company, at its sole discretion, shall consider for any alternative property or refund the amount deposited with simple interest @10% per annum.”

From the afore-extracted clauses of the allotment letter, it is clearly revealed that the plans, designs, specifications shown to the allottee were tentative. The said plans and specifications were accepted by the allottees, with such additions, deletions, alterations, modifications, in the lay out, building plans etc. or change of entire scheme by the Company. Since each page of the allotment letter was signed by the complainants and there is no averment that the allotment letter was signed under coercion, it would be deemed that the same was signed by the complainants with open eyes and after understanding the terms and conditions of the same. So, we are of the view that Opposite Party No.1 rightly charged for increase, in the super area, from the complainants.

16.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to the refund of amount, if so, to what extent.  Clause4(B) of the Allotment Letter dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure C-2) , intealia, reads as under:-

“4(B) The company and the Apartment allottee hereby agrees that the amounts paid to the former by the later with the application and in installments as the case may be, to the extent of 20% of the basic sale price of the apartment, will collectively constitute the earnest money. This earnest money shall stand forfeited in case of non fulfillment of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.”

No doubt, as per the afore-extracted Clause 4(B) of the allotment letter dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure C-2), in case of non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the earnest money i.e. 20% of the basic sale price of the apartment shall stand forfeited. As stated above, the complainants were not interested in taking possession of the unit, in question, despite the fact that the same was offered to them, vide letter dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure R-2), before filing the complaint i.e. 11.06.2015, and sought refund of the amount. This amounted to surrender of the unit, in question, and the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, between the parties, stood rescinded.  However, in our considered opinion, forfeiture of 20% amount of the sale price, can be said to be unreasonable and unconscionable. Since such a condition in the allotment letter dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure C-2) is unilateral, unreasonable and unconscionable, it can be said that by incorporating the same, Opposite Party No.1 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 a Clause in the Agreement requiring the forfeiture 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 treading upon acute disputed questions of fact, may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the factual 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 4(B) contained in Annexure C-2, providing for forfeiture of more than 10% of the basic sale price of the apartment, being unreasonable and unconscionable, amounted to unfair trade practice. However, in the instant case, as discussed above, since the possession was offered by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainants vide letter dated 04.03.2014, keeping in view the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in DLF Ltd. Vs. Bhagwanti Narula’s case (supra), Opposite Party No.1 is only entitled to forfeit 10% of the basic sale price of the apartment, and not 20% of the same, as already discussed above.

17.          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 basic sale price of the apartment could be forfeited. The total basic sale price of the apartment, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure C-2) was Rs.39,97,350/- including PLC. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter were duly accepted and signed by the complainants. Therefore, the amount of forfeiture shall come to Rs.3,99,735/-. Opposite Party No.1 could forfeit Rs.3,99,735/- out of Rs.35,90,042/-, deposited by the complainants. The complainants, are thus, entitled to Rs.31,90,307/- i.e. (Rs.35,90,042/- minus (-)   Rs.3,99,735/-).

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

19.            For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, against Opposite Party No.1 only, with no order as to costs and it (Opposite Party No.1) is held liable and directed in the following manner:-

(i)             To refund the amount of Rs.31,90,307/-  i.e. [Rs.35,90,042 (amount paid)  minus  (-) Rs.3,99,735/- being 10% of Rs.39,97,350/-], to the complainants, alongwith interest @9% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

(ii)            M/s India bulls Housing Finance Ltd. shall have the first charge, on the amount to be refunded, to the complainants, by Opposite Party No.1, to the extent, the amount is due to it, against them (complainants) as it (M/s India bulls Housing Finance Ltd.) advanced loan in their (complainants) favour for part payment of the price of unit, in question, under the Tripartite Agreement dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure C-6).

(iii)         In case, the payment of amount, mentioned in Clauses (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then Opposite Party No.1, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) above, with interest @12% per annum, instead of 9% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization.

20.            However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed, with no orders as to cost.

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

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

Pronounced.                                           Sd/-

03.08.2015                                                   

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER