Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/311/2017

Ajitpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vipul Aggarwal,Adv.

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	311 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	10.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	28. 02.2018

 

1. Ajitpal Singh s/o Inderjit Singh r/o H.No.951, Phase 3B-2, Mohali, Punjab.
2. Karanveer Singh s/o Inderjit Singh r/o H.No.951, Phase 3B-2, Mohali, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Representative.  

 

2. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Corporate Office at SCO No.120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector  17-C, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory/Representative.

 

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

              The facts, in brief, are that the complainants applied for a residential plot vide application dated 17.07.2012. The complainants were allotted a residential plot bearing No.802, Sector 108, Mohali for a total sale consideration of Rs.47,23,891/- under full Down Payment Plan vide provisional allotment letter dated 09.10.2012 (Annexure C-5).  The complainants paid 95% of the BSP and 100% of EDC i.e. a sum of Rs.40,76,678/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.42,85,320/- (after deducting rebate of Rs.4,38,571/- from the total price of Rs.47,23,891/-).  Thereafter, Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 15.11.2012 (Annexure C-9). As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the said plot was to be delivered within a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement i.e. on or before 15.11.2013 but despite repeated requests, the Opposite Parties failed to handover possession of the plot/unit, in question, to the complainants. Therefore, complainant No.1 requested the Opposite Parties to give an alternative plot of a similar size and location in the same sector vide his email dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure C-10), in response to which, the Opposite Parties offered an alternative plot bearing No.109-AP-753-300 in Sector 109 but the said offer was not accepted by the complainants. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties offered another plot bearing No.109-AP-718-299 in Sector 109 but it was again rejected being located in different sector and not at par with the earlier allotted plot. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had received 95% of the total sale consideration but at the location of the plot, no development work had ever started. It was stated that the Opposite Parties illegally diverted the funds received from the complainants to some other site. Therefore, the complainants requested for refund of the amount alongwith interest. Copies of intimation letters dated 20.05.2015, 15.08.2016 & 09.01.2017 are Annexures C-12 to C-14 respectively. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties neither offered/delivered possession of the plot nor refunded the deposited amount to the complainants despite repeated requests. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to pay any amount with regard to compensation/penalty for the period of delay. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.           The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, have taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and also, they separately, moved an application u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was stated that the complainants did not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they are resident of Mohali and are residing at their own house at Mohali and they purchased the said unit only for speculation purposes. It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the Agreement was executed at Mohali and only Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the plot does have the jurisdiction. It was further stated that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint. It was further stated that the complainants have already been offered alternate unit/plot and it is the complainants, who have not accepted the relocated plots and failed to take possession of the same. It was further stated that the cause of action accrued to the complainants to file the complaint till 14.05.2014, according to the Agreement but the complainant filed the present complaint only in the year 2017 and, as such, the complaint is time barred.  It was further stated that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement that in case of failure of the allotment to perform all obligations as set out in the Agreement, the allottee has authorized the Company to forfeit the earnest money, as stipulated in Clause 2(f) of the Agreement alongwith any interest paid, due or payable, any amount of non refundable nature. It was admitted regarding booking & allotment of the unit ; execution of the Agreement and payment of the total amount of Rs.40,76,678/-, as is evident from statement of account (Annexure R-3). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties only proposed to try and endeavored to hand over possession of the unit within 18 months. It was admitted by the Opposite Parties as the amenities adjacent to and upto the plot of the complainants were not complete, possession has not been offered to them. The Opposite Parties duly provided relocation options to the complainants but they refused to accept it, and therefore no refund can be made out to the complainants. It was further stated that in case of rescission of contract by the complainants, forfeiture clause would be applicable. It was denied regarding receipt of letters Annexures C-12 to C-14. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.           The complainants, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

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

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

6.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. This question has already been elaborately dealt with by this Commission in case titled Mrs.Anjani Dass Vs. DLF Universal Limited, Complaint Case No.295 of 2017, decided on 19.07.2017. Para No.12 of the said order, inter-alia, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-

“12.  At the time of arguments, it was also argued by Counsel for the opposite parties that in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint and let the matter be referred to an arbitrator for adjudication.

                We are not going to agree with the argument raised. This Commission, in a case titled as ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126 has already elaborately dealt with this question, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), and held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Furthermore, under similar circumstances, the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016, held as under:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in  Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha  (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

Furthermore, the National Commission in a case titled Omaxe Limited Vs. Dinesh Lal Tarachandani, First Appeal No.1433 of 2016, decided on 24.11.2016, while dismissing the appeal filed by the builder (Omaxe), held as under:-

“We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Learned Counsel.  In our opinion, the decision of the State Commission being based on the authoritative pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also on the decision dated 02.05.2016, rendered by this Bench in the case of Lt. Col. Anil Raj & Ors. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Ors. in CC No. 346/2013, in which we have held that notwithstanding the amendments in the Arbitration Act, the reasoning and ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.  (Supra) still holds good, no fault can be found with the view taken by the State Commission. 

Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.”

                Recently, the larger Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, vide order dated 13.07.2017, has held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

                In view of the above, argument raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.”

             

            Against the order passed by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited filed Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed.

              In view of the above, the objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

7.           The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not.

              According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, it is evident from the record, that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the allottee(s) and the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh on 15.11.2012 (Annexure C-9). Not only this, the documents (Annexures C-2, C-4 to C-8) were sent by the Opposite Parties from their Chandigarh Office, as the same bore the address of the Company as “SCO 120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017”. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

8.           Another objection taken by the Opposite Parties, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, also deserves rejection.  In the present case, even if the interest component is added to the amount claimed/price of the unit, the case is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In view of above, this objection taken by the Opposite Parties that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, fails and the same stands rejected.

9.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that the mere objection of the Opposite Parties that since the complainants are resident of Mohali and are residing at their own house at Mohali, as such, they purchased the unit for speculation purposes, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected. It has been mentioned by the complainants, in para no.2 of their rejoinder that they booked the plot for their personal use in order to construct a house over it and not for speculation. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential unit, which was allotted, in favour of the complainants, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainants. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainants are property dealers. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the complainants purchased the property for speculation purposes, as such, they did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. Further, 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 National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The  complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by  the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

10.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainants, was within limitation or not.  It may be stated here that since it has been frankly admitted by the Opposite Parties, in number of paragraphs of their joint written statement that as the amenities adjacent to and upto the plot of the complainants was not complete so possession has not been offered to them and also not refunded the deposited amount to the complainants alongwith interest, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in her favour, in view of principle 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). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by time. The submission of Counsel for  the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.          Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since it was mentioned in the Agreement that the Company shall “endeavour” to deliver possession of the unit within maximum period of 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, time was not the essence of contract, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Clause 8 of the Agreement that possession of the unit will be delivered by the Opposite Parties, within a maximum period of 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. latest by 14.05.2014, subject to force majeure circumstances or reason beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties did not raise any force majeure circumstances, if any, encountered by them. In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the Opposite Parties or any other valid and legal reason beyond their control, the stand taken by them, in this regard, for condonation of delay in delivery of possession of the unit, to the complainants, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, under these circumstances, since as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, time was,  unequivocally made the essence of contract.

              Even otherwise, the Opposite Parties cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the word endeavour/tentative/ proposed was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. Non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement, is an unfair trade practice, on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of the Opposite Parties in this regard also stands rejected.

12.          The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants were bound to accept offer of possession, in respect of the unit/plot, in question, when the same was offered to them vide letter dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure OP-A colly.), during the pendency of the complaint, by filing separate Miscellaneous Application No.1185 of 2017 and that too, after a huge delay of more than three years, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances. It is, no doubt, true that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the unit will be delivered by the Opposite Parties, within a maximum period of 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. latest by 14.05.2014 and not more than that. However, the Opposite Parties failed to offer the possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement. It is very true that during the pendency of this complaint, the Opposite Parties moved Miscellaneous Application No.1185 of 2017 only on 13.12.2017 for placing on record documents showing the fact that possession has been offered to the complainants i.e. after a period of eight months of filing of this complaint. The said application was allowed vide order dated 29.01.2018 and letter of offer of possession dated 16.10.2017 was taken on record. It may be stated here that non-delivery of possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, by the stipulated date, is a material violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the said delay occurred, on account of force majeure circumstances, met by them, on account of some stay or any other valid reason. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants by the stipulated date, the purchaser(s) is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage. It was so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held  as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.

 

Further, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

 

                In view of the above, it is held that since there was a material violation on the part of the Opposite Parties, in not handing over physical possession of the unit, complete in all respects, within the stipulated date, as mentioned in the Agreement, the complainants were at liberty, not to accept the offer made after a long delay, and on the other hand, were right by seeking refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest and compensation, by way of filing the instant complaint.

13.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.40,76,678/-, as claimed by them. The Opposite Parties admitted in their written statement that the complainants paid the total amount of Rs.40,76,678/-, as is evident from statement of accounts (Annexure R-3). It is also an admitted fact that the  Opposite Parties are unable to deliver  possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement or even by the time when the complaint was filed. It is no doubt true that when the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the allotted unit to the complainants, they allocated another unit(s) in Sector 109, which was not accepted to the complainants. It is pertinent to note that if the complainants not ready to accept relocated unit, the Opposite Parties cannot force them to accept the same. The Opposite Parties only offered possession to the complainants after a delay of more than three years. The  Opposite Parties, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The complainants are thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by them. In view of above facts of the case, the  Opposite Parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them.

14.          It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the  complainants. It is no doubt true that an amount of Rs.40,76,678/-, was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the  Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the  Opposite Parties were charging heavy rate of interest (15% of the total sale price) as per Clause 2 (f) of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of installments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the  complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them alongwith interest @10% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits till realization. 

15.          As far as the plea taken by the Opposite Parties, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not their (Opposite Parties) case, that they were ready with possession of the unit, to be delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date but it was they (complainants) who wanted to rescind the contract, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/ financial constraints due to deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Parties or for  any  personal  reason,  and  is  seeking  refund  of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the Opposite Parties, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that since the complainants themselves are rescinding the contract, as such, they are entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.

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

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

1. To refund the amount Rs.40,76,678/-, to  the  complainants, alongwith interest @10% p.a.,  from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-,for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the  complainants.
4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @12% p.a., instead of @10% p.a., from the date of default, and interest @10% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

18.          However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in the aforesaid cases, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit(s), it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant(s).

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

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

Pronounced.

February  28^th, 2018.                              Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb