District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 668/2021.
Date of Institution: 28.12.2021.
Date of Order: 19.09.2022.
Mahesh Kumar Sh. Narayan Singh, Date of birth 12-01-1961, Currently R/o H.NO. F-201, BPTP Parkgranduera, Sector-82. Faridabad, Haryana-121004, and Permanent Resident of House No. 2, Sector-74, Village-Mirzapur, Tehsil-Tigaon, Nimka (96) District-Faridabad, Haryana-121004 (Mobile No.8860078090).
………..Complainant………
Versus
1) M/s BPTP Limited. (Through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory) M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001Also, at: OT-14, 3D Floor, Next Door Parklands, Sector-76, Faridabad-121004E-mail: customercare@boto.com
2) Mr. Kabul Chawla, Chairman & Managing Director, M/s BPTP Ltd. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
(3) Mr. Sudhanshu Tripathi, Director, M/s. BPTP Ltd. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place,New Delhi-110001
(4) Mrs. Chitra Menon Director, M/s BPTP Ltd.M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place,New Delhi-110001.
(5) M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd.(Through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory) M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place,New Delhi-110001
(6) Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Director M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
(7) Mr. Rakesh Roshan, Director M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001.
(8). Mr. Jawahar Chawla,Director, M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. M-11,
Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. S.K.Bakshi, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jai Shankar, AR on behalf of oppositeparties.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the opposite parties entered into an agreement (Tri-party) 13.09.2007 with the complainant, to sell a residential flat admeasuring 1289 sq. ft at 'C' Tower, Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad (Haryana) to the complainant, allotment in favor of the complainant was endorsed by the opposite parties on 26-09-2007. The opposite parties have allotted a flat bearing no. 403, 'C' Tower, Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad (Haryana) to complainant herein on 26.09.2007 for a total consideration of Rs. 25,67,655/-. The Subject to Clause 9 of agreement and subject to the Purchaser having complied with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not being in default under any of the provisions of this agreement and having complied with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as prescribed by the Seller/Confirming party, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, from time to time, the Seller/Confirming party proposed to hand over the possession of the Flat to the Purchaser within a period of 36 month from the date of sanction of the building plans of the said complex. The Seller/Confirming party shall give Notice of Possession to the purchaser with regard to the handing over of possession. Subject to remittance and adherence to the terms and conditions of this Agreement by the Purchaser and subject to clause 9, if, the Seller/Confirming Party fails to offer possession of the said Flat within a period of 42 months fromthe date of sanction of the building plans of the said Complex. then O.Ps. will pay compensationto the complainant @ Rs. 5/ - the per sq. Ft. for every month of delay. The complainant further submitted that he did not receive any possession offer document of the Flat from opposite parties but on enquiry from some people who got such document. the delay period caused was 41 months. The complainant also took a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from HDFC Bank to purchase the above mentioned flat and EMI of said loan was being paid by my client regularly and the bank was doing payment to opposite parties as per Builder Buyer agreement on builder's demand. The opposite parties confirmed to the HDFC Ltd., in respect of above said loan of the complainant, the opposite parties had also clarifiedvide their letter dated 31-10-2007 that their building plan had been approved by the competent authority (Director, Town and Country Planning Chandigarh and other departments) and the construction of said unit will be inaccordance with the approved plans. Regarding construction / development of aforesaid flat complex, the oppositeparties further assured the complainant that aforesaid flat and the land appurtenant thereto were not subject to Any encumbrance, charge or liability of any kind whatsoever and that the entire property was free and marketable and the opposite parties had a clear, legal and marketable title to the saidproperty. The complainant herein had never violated any of the provision of terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties. Despite having necessary sanction and construction of above said flat complex plan and payment of all dues on the part of the complainant, the opposite parties. did not hand over the physical possession of aforesaid flat to the complainant herein within settled period with an ulterior motive of causing financial, physical, social and mental losses to the complainant in addition to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties The complainant had already paid to the opposite parties a sum of Rs. 26,83,358/-towards payment of aforesaid flat. The opposite parties neither had given the physical possession of above said flat to complainant herein nor made any honest/ sincere effort to do so and instead the opposite e parties demanded additionalcost/charges with respect to above flat from the complainant. When complainant requested the opposite parties to hand over the possession of said flat, then the opposite parties demanded the increased amount of Rs. 30,75,961/- instead of Rs. 25,67,655/-from complainant, contrary to the above said agreement, with a malafide intent of extracting huge money from the complainant, which was clearly a deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. The complainant had suffered financially, socially, emotionally and physically due to above said deficiency inservice. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties either to hand over the possession of above said flat to the complainant on logical basis or return the deposited amount towards above said flat to the complainant. But the addressees neither handed over the possession of afore said flat nor returned the deposited amount towards above said flat to my client despite several requests of his client.
The complainant sent legal notice dated 08.12.2020 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) return the payment of Rs. 26,83,358/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. being non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the agreement dated 13,09.2007 thereby deficient in service to return my principal amount with 18% compound annual interest rate from beginning as and when the payment was asked for and was made.
b) if above is not justified then to return his principal amount with the same rate of interest which opposite parties (the rate at which BPTP has levied penalty) has been demanding i.e. 15% in its statement before the arrival of Rera act 2016 and till 21-06-2017 which the complainant came to know through the statement of account sent by opposite parties and in 2018 the complainant did not get any statement of account. This condition is also mentioned in the Tripartite agreement document too. The opposite parties did not respond to the appeals made by the complainant leading to filing of this complaint in this Commission.
c) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) If any of the above requests is not found legal/justified then the complainant can take the possession of the flat provided, the BPTP is ready to
remove opposite parties -builder increased price and compensate the complainant for delay possession offer @18% interest for the delay period plus other compensations as described above. In this case BPTP can also claim delay payment charge on its remaining payment if any left after removing all the payments entries (which it has made illegally) which it is making other than the payment being mentioned in the builder buyer agreement.
e) If any of the above requests is not as per law then my alternative request is :
Return of my principal amount with 18% interest rate from beginning Plus compensation, for harassment, mental agony and legal expenses till the possession was offered.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that (a) copy of complaint served on the opposite parties reflects in the memo of parties that the Complainant had impleaded 6 individuals along with 2 companies as party to the complaint. It was further submitted that opposite parties No.2 to 8, they had been wrongly impleaded as party to the complaint, whereas opposite party No.2 was a Managing Director of Opposite party No.1, opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.4 were directors of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.5 was just a 'confirming party to the Buyer's Agreement, opposite party No.6 was an ex-employee of opposite party No.1 but was the managing director of BPMS Pvt. Ltd., opposite party No.7 was a director of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.8 was an ex-employee of opposite party No.1. It was submitted that the Complainant had made booking with opposite party No.1, made payments only to opposite party No.1 and the Complainant interacted exclusively only with opposite party No.1.However, with a view to harass, opposite parties No.2 to 8 had been unnecessarily made a party to the complaint under reply. Therefore, as a natural corollary, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 ought to be deleted from the array of parties. Even otherwise, opposite party No. I was a separate legal entity, capable and competent to sue and being sued in its independent capacity. Furthermore, as no claim was made by the Complainant against the opposite party No. 2 to 8, they were liable to be deleted from the array of parties.
(b). the entire submissions and instances as alleged by the Complainant in the present complaint under reply, against the opposite party No.1 were nothing but sham and entirely based on assumptions, conjectures and surmises, without any iota of proof. The Complainant in his complaint, had deliberately concocted various false, baseless and concocted allegations at his own whims and fancies without any substantiation (documented herein below) as an afterthought only to prejudice the opposite party No.1. The Complainants had relied on baseless grounds to file the complaint under reply and was also guilty of misleading this Hon'ble Commission.
(c) the present complaint filed under reply was not maintainable being hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It was submitted that the opposite party No.1 on 31.12.2012 offered possession of the unit in question, while requesting to complete documentary formalities and clear outstanding dues to initiate registration of conveyance deed in his favour, in said regard any cause of action (if any) accrued in favour of the Complainant on 31.12.2012. It was further submitted that the Complainant himself had committed defaults in making timely payments as and when demanded by the opposite party No.1 despite of numerous reminders notices, emails and telephonic communication (documented herein below). The
Complainants deliberately did not pay any heed after issuance of offer of possession letter dated 31.12.2012, and now at this belated stage with a dishonest intent to gain extraneous considerations from the opposite party No.1, have filed present complaint on 28.12.2021 i.e., after expiry of 10 years (approx.) from the date of issuance of offer of possession which was well beyond the limitation period of two years as per Section 69 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also was in contravention to the variousjudgments of the Apex Court. Accordingly, the present complaint is entitled to be dismissed without any further adjudication.
(d). That the complaint under reply is also liable to be dismissed as the Complainant had instituted complaint purely on arbitrary, baseless with misrepresented and concealed facts and documents to gain an unfair advantage. The actual, true and correct facts for the instant case were enumerated herein below for ready convenience:
(i) on 29.12.2005, one Mr. Rajesh Gupta (First Allottee') applied. for a provisional registration of a flat/unit in the future projects of the opposite party No.1 for a tentative area 1,000 sq. ft. having basic sale price @Rs.1,400/- per sq. ft. and other charges as and when demanded, and deposited Rs.3,00,000/- as registration amount vide receipt dated 23.01.2006.
(ii) in the month of April' 2004, Mr. Parbhjot Singh and Mr. ChandanBagga (referred to as 'Second Allottees') desired to apply for a booking/allotment in the project of the opposite party No.1 and accordingly, the First Allottee and the Second Allottees jointly approached the opposite party No.1 for transfer of booking/allotment in favour of the Second Allottees. It was submitted that on account of completion of documentary formalities and requisite payment by the Second Allottees, the opposite party No.1 via letter dated 23.11.2006 allotted unit no. C-403/ Area (tentative) 1,289 sq. ft. (119.75 sq. mtrs.) in the project 'Princess Park, Faridabad' whereby basic sale price @Rs.1,400/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.18,04,600/-, EDC_IDC @RS.145/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.1,86,905/-, PLC (Park) @Rs.100/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.1,28,900/-, Open Car Parking Rs.75,000/-, Club Membership Charges Rs.50,000/-, Fire fitting and power backup installation charges Rs.200/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.2,57,800/-, Interest Free Maintenance Charges @Rs.50/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.64,450/-, resulting in net sale consideration Rs.25,67,655/-. It was submittedthat total sale consideration was evaluated after completion of construction work and from offer of possession. Evidently, the Second Allottees on thorough reading and understanding of the clauses and/or recitals incorporated in the FlatBuyer's Agreement (FBA) dated 04.04.2007 agreed and accepted to abide by the same, accordingly submitted the same with the opposite party No.1 after affixing their respective signatures as a token of acceptance.
(iii) The Complainant after conducting his own due diligence and being
completely satisfied, approached the Second Allottees for purchase of booking/allotment of said unit and thereafter, the Second Allottees and the Complainant jointly approached the opposite party No.1 for transfer of said booking/allotment in favour of the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant was fully aware about the development and other related aspects including but not limited to payment plan and other charges applicable to the unit at the time being and in future i.e. at the time of offer of possession, accordingly on reading and understanding submitted fresh Application for Allotment ("Booking Form') as well as already executed FBA between the Second Allottees and the opposite party No.1 was duly endorsed in favour of the Complainant, which was duly confirmed by the opposite party No.1 via letter dated 26.09.2007.
(iv) The Complainant had concealed from this Hon'ble Commission that the opposite party No.1 after receiving requisite permissions/approvals from competent authority/s has offered possession via letter dated 31.12.2012 for allotted unit no. C-403 with final super built-up area of 1,358 sq. ft. (126.16 sq. mtrs.) while raising demand at the stage of 'offer of possession' amounting to
Rs.5,16,113.91/- inclusive ofstamp duty charges and conveyance deed registration charges, payable on or before 30.01.2013 to avoid any accumulation of interest and holding charges @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month. In addition to said charges, the Complainant vide Clause 4 read along with Clause 7 of Booking Form, also reiterated vide Clause 1.1, Clause 1.4 and Clause 6.5 read along with Clause 5.4 of endorsed FBA and Annexure-D of endorsed FBA, agreed and accepted to make payment qua basic sale price and other charges like EDC, IDC, PLC, IFMS, ECC, FFC, PBIC, enhanced EDC as levied by Haryana Government as and when demanded by the opposite parties, Infrastructure tax, Govt. rates, cess charges,
VAT, wealth tax or any other fresh incidence of tax as calculated on the basis of super area, whether levied, or leviable now or in future. For ready reference, detail of charges is enclosed herewith under:
S. No.Description Rate Amount Amount
agreed at time booking Area 1,289/- charged/
(inRupees) sq. ft. OOP - Area
1,358 sq.ft.
1. Basic Sale Price 1,400/- per 18,04,600.00 19,01,200.00
sq. ft.
2. External 145/- per sq. ft. 1,86,905.00 1,96,910.00
Development
Charges(EDC) +
Infrastructure
Development
Charges (IDC)
3. Preferential 100/- per 1,28,900.00 1,35,800.00
Location Charges sq. Ft.
(PLC)/Park
4. Open Car Parking 75,000.00 75,000.00
5. Club Membership 50,000.00 50,000.00
Charges (CMC)
6. Fire fitting & 200/- per 2,57,800.00 2,71,600.00
Power backup sq. ft.
Installation
Charges.
7. Interest Free 50/- per sq. 64,450.00 67,900.00.
Maintenance ft.
charges
8. Enhanced 1,58,261.32
External
Development
Charges
9. VAT 26,236.82
10. Stamp DutyCharges Subject to finalization at time of
execution of conveyance deed
11. Conveyance Deed Subject to finalization at time of charges execution of conveyance deed
12. Other charges if any.
Net total 25,67,655.00 28,82,908.14
(v) Parties vide Clause 11 and Clause 24 of Booking Form read along with Clause 10 of endorsed FBA, agreed and accepted that timely payment of installments shall be the essence of the transaction. The Complainant knowingly did not give any importance to offer of possession letter dated 31.12.2012 issued qua unit in question, which constrained the OPPOSITE PARTIES No.1 to issue reminder letters dated 03.01.2013, 18.02.2013, 20.03.2013, 22.04.2013, 22.05.2013, 30.05.2013,reminder notice for execution of sale deed vide letter dated 13.06.2013, final opposite opportunity letter dated 21.01.2014, 02.05.2014, 17.06.2014.
Due to defaults in making in timely payments, the opposite party No.1 within
agreed and accepted terms and conditions vide letter dated 15.06.2015 terminated / cancelled the allotment of unit in question, whereby the opposite party No.1 being customer centric organization and with an intent to secure booking rights of the Complainant quashed the termination/cancellation of allotment rather vide letter dated 05.11.2015 issued recovery OOP to the Complainant while requesting to complete documentation and clear outstanding dues. The opposite party No.1 again via email dated 14.09.2016 requested to remit outstanding amounts and getting the unit in question registered in their favour. The Complainant being chronic defaulter, kept on ignoring continuous legitimate request by the opposite party No.1, being constrained by said acts of the Complainant, the opposite party No.1 issued last and final opportunity letter dated 02.02.2017 along with reminder emails dated 04.02.2017 & 16.03.2017 and later recovery OOP letter dated 16.03.2017. No action being taken by the Complainant towards numerous requests of the opposite party No.1, which again constrained to issue reminder letters dated 11.12.2017, 07.03.2018, 09.04.2018 and 04.07.2018.
In the meanwhile the Complainant requested to provide ledger summary of his account, thus the opposite party No.1 vide email dated 25.07.2019 provided detailed statement of accounts whereby final receivable amount was Rs.24,56,330/- [actual paid (Rs.25,03,205/-) - refund to HDFC on behalf of Complainant on 29.09.2017 (Rs.46,875/-) evident from statement of account dated 11.02.2021 annexed by Complainant (pg.81 of complaint)] and; balance outstanding amount was Rs.13,29,915.91/-.
(vi) The Complainant had concealed and misrepresented facts and documents with regard to his loan sanction from HDFC Bank amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-. It is stated that the Complainant submitted loan sanction letter dated 21.06.2007 from HDFC bank with the opposite party No.1 on 21.08.2007,
accordingly allotment of unit in question was made in favour of the Complainant on 26.09.2007. It was further stated that the Complainant has been chronic defaulter in repaying the outstanding loan since 30.04.2016. The opposite party No.1 vide emails dated 25.07.2017 and 05.01.2019 as a goodwill gesture duly. informed the Complainant that opposite party No.1 has received an intimation from HDFC Bank regarding the repayment of the loans viewing the dispute of non-payment of the demand by the Complainant, henceforth a letter for loan withdrawal from the bank has been received by the opposite party No.1 and further requested to kindly settle the dispute to avoid implication of terms and conditions of tripartite agreement. In collaboration to above stated, the opposite party No.1 ought to draw attention towards letters dated 11.03.2018 and 21.12.2018 relied upon by the Complainant received from HDFC Bank. It was evident from said letters that the Complainant was defaulter in making payment towards loan amount consisting of outstanding of total principal amount of Rs.18,93,845/(accumulated delay for 23 months till said date), outstanding Pre EMIS amounting to Rs.4,33,043/-, additional interest amounting to Rs.80,512/- and incidental charges amounting to Rs.5,640/- i.c., total outstanding stands up to Rs.24,13,040/- (calculated as on 30.08.2018). Further, default of the Complainant was evident from statement of account relied upon by the Complainant dated 11.02.2021 for the period of 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 (pg. 80 of complaint), 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 (pg. 81 of complaint), 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 (pg. 82 of complaint), 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 (pg. 83 of complaint), 01.04.2020 to 11.02.2021 (pg. 84 of complaint). It is stated that the Complainant with malicious intentions has deliberately misrepresented from this Hon'ble Commission with a sole motive to portrait himself as victim and the opposite parties as wrong-doer.Opposite partiesdenied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– BPTP& Others with the prayer to:a) return the payment of Rs. 26,83,358/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. being non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the agreement dated 13,09.2007 thereby deficient in service to return my principal amount with 18% compound annual interest rate from beginning as and when the payment was asked for and was made. b) if above is not justified then to return his principal amount with the same rate of interest which opposite parties (the rate at which BPTP has levied penalty) has been demanding i.e. 15% in its statement before the arrival of Rera act 2016 and till 21-06-2017 which the complainant came to know through the statement of account sent by opposite parties and in 2018 the complainant did not get any statement of account. This condition is also mentioned in the Tripartite agreement document too. The opposite parties did not respond to the appeals made by the complainant leading to filing of this complaint in this Commission. c) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .d) If any of the above requests is not found legal/justified then the complainant can take the possession of the flat provided, the BPTP is ready to remove opposite parties - builder increased price and compensate the complainant for delay possession offer @18% interest for the delay period plus other compensations as described above. In this case BPTP can also claim delay payment charge on its remaining payment if any left after removing all the payments entries (which it has made illegally) which it is making other than the payment being mentioned in the builder buyer agreement.e) If any of the above requests is not as per law then my alternative request is :
Return of my principal amount with 18% interest rate from beginning Plus compensation, for harassment, mental agony and legal expenses till the possession was offered.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Mahesh Kumar,, Ex.CW-1/1 – tripartite Agreement, Ex.CW1/2 – Statement of account for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, ex.CW1/3 - letter dated May 09,2013, Ex.CW1/4 – legal notice,, Ex.CW1/5 – postal receipts, Ex.CW1/6 – email, Ex.CW1/ 7 – Home Loan agreement, Ex.CW1/8 – letter dated 21.12.2018, Ex.CW1/9 – letter dated 25.07.2019 regarding ledger account for unit NO. C-403, Ex.CW1/10 - Ministry of corporate Affairs – MCA services,, Ex.CW1/B – affidavit of Mahesh Kumar
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Jay Shankar, authorized representative of opposite parties, Ex.R/1 (colly) – resolution ,, Ex.R/2 - copy of occupation certificate dated 6.9.2012, Ex.R-3 – copy of offer of possession dated 31.12.2012, Ex.R-4 - application for provisional registration of flat, Ex.R/5 – surrender/Transfer of provisional registration, Ex.R-6 – application for provisional registration of plot , Ex.R/7 – letter dated 23.11.2006, Ex.R-8 – Flat Buyer’s agreement,, Ex.R/9 – Application for allotment of residential flat, Ex.R/10 – endorsement form,, Ex.R-11(colly) – letter dated 03.12.2009, Ex.R-12(colly) – screeshot of the pre-intimation sms dated 29.12.2012 and receipt dated 26.02.2008,Ex.R/13 – copy of letters, Ex.R/14(colly) – letter dated 15.06.2015 regarding termination/cancellation intimation, Ex.R-15(colly) email dated 14.09.2016, Ex.R-16 – email dated 25.07.2019, Ex.R-17(colly) – email dated 25.07.2017, Ex.R-18 - Revised building plan, Ex.R-19 – handover agreement, Ex.R-20(colly) – letter dated June 14,2022 regarding statement of account,Ex.R-21- conveyance deed dated 8.3.2013 and 12.3.2013, Ex.R-22 – copy of judgement titled Punjab small Industries and Export corporation Ltd. And Anr.Vs. Satinder Pal Singh.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite parties have made a statement that we are ready to refund the deposited amount in terms of clause-11 i.e. forfeiture clause of the flat buyer agreement. Since complainant was seeking refund.
On the other hand, Shri Mahesh Kumar complainant has made a statement that “I in the present case pray that refund alongwith interest, cost and compensation be granted to me and rate of interest as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
7. On the basis of the statement of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed with the direction to refund the deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit . Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Opposite parties are also at liberty to deduct the interest amount from the date of Covid period. As we all now in the year 2020 to 2021 the diseases Covid-19 was spreading and the government of India have declared the Lockdown in the Country and everything was getting closed. The builders are also sufferer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took Suo Motu Cognizance in SMWP 3 of 2020 of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19.
The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 19.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
