Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/191/2014

Dr. Mona Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mukand Gupta & Geeta Gupta,Adv.

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	191 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	29.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	09/03/2015

 

Dr.Mona Chopra wife of Amit Chopra, resident of House no.555, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO No.120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, U.T., through its Managing Director.

              .... Opposite Party

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

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh. Mukund Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

                  Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the Opposite                                 Party.

 

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

           

            The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party floated a scheme for the allotment of residential plots, under the name and style of Mohali Hills. It was stated that since the complainant was in need of a residential plot, for her residence, as such, she applied for the same, to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the plot which was selected by the complainant had already been booked by Masterline Finman Service, vide application No.1976. As such, the residential plot booked by Masterline Finman Service, was purchased by the complainant from it, with the consent of the Opposite Party, on payment of transfer fees, to the tune of Rs.75,000/-, to it (Opposite Party), on 22.01.2007. Accordingly, the Opposite Party transferred the plot, in the name of the complainant- Dr.Mona Chopra. It was further stated that, in this manner, the rights and interest, in the plot, were transferred, in favour of the complainant, by the Opposite Party, as she stepped into the shoes of Masterline Finman Service.         

2.       It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as registration amount to the Opposite Party. Provisional allotment letter in respect of plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Central Greens, Mohali Hills, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, @Rs.11,500/- per square yard, plus (+) External Development Charges of Rs.2,01,144/- plus (+) Preferential Location Charges of Rs.3,45,000/-, was issued in favour of the complainant.  The basic sale price of the said residential plot was to the tune of Rs.34,50,000/-. Thus, the total sale consideration, in the sum of Rs.39,96,144/-was required to be paid by the  complainant.
3.       Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, in respect of plot no.176, aforesaid, was executed between the parties. It was further stated that, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons beyond the control of the Company, physical possession of the fully developed residential plot, was to be handed over to the complainant, within a period of two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement). It was further mentioned, in the said Agreement, that, in case of delay, in handing over possession of the fully developed plot, within three years, from the date of execution of the same, the Opposite Party was liable to pay compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per square yard, per month, for such period of delay. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Party was required to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant, on or before 19.06.2010.
4.       Thereafter, as per the instalment payment plan, the complainant, in all, deposited an amount of Rs.38,23,649/-, towards part price of the said plot. She, thus, qualified for waiver of 5% of the basic sale price i.e. Rs.1,72,000/-, which was given to her, by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that, in this manner, the entire sale consideration, towards the said plot, was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Party.
5.       It was further stated that when possession of the plot, in question, was not offered, by the stipulated date, the complainant sent email dated 19.11.2011 Annexure C-4, to the Opposite Party, with a request to deliver possession, but to no avail. It was further stated that, in response to the letter dated 19.11.2011 Annexure C-4, the Opposite Party, vide email dated 21.11.2011 Annexure C-5, intimated the complainant that possession of the plot, in question, could not be delivered to her, for want of basic amenities at the site. However, it was intimated to the complainant, vide the said letter that the Opposite Party shall update her, regarding status of the unit, in question, at regular intervals. It was further intimated to the complainant, vide the said letter that compensation/penalty, for the period of delay shall be paid at the time of delivery of possession of the said plot.
6.       It was further stated that after waiting for sometime, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to deliver physical possession of the plot, in question, but to no avail. It was further stated that, in this manner, a lot of correspondence took place between the parties, regarding delivery of possession of the said plot, in favour of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Party vide email dated 04.12.2012, for the first time, informed her that possession of plot No.176, could not be delivered to her. The complainant was told to get the plot, in question, relocated with a new one, in the same project. It was further stated that, in the meanwhile, the complainant came to know that the Opposite Party had not even acquired the land, where plot No.176 was located. Ultimately, vide email dated 27.02.2013, the complainant was relocated by making offer of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, instead of plot No.176. It was further stated that offer of relocation of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was a unilateral and arbitrary step of the Opposite Party
7.       It was further stated that despite the fact that though the relocated plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was non-preferentially located, yet the Opposite Party, charged the preferential location charges @12.5% of the basic sale price, without giving any justification. It was further stated that Amended Agreement dated 31.05.2013, was executed between the parties, in respect of plot No.215, Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali.  
8.       It was further stated that even the possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was not offered to the complainant, despite the fact that the entire sale consideration, in the manner, referred to above, had been obtained by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party, through every possible means, with a request to deliver the possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, but every time, it kept on putting off the matter, on lame excuses. It was further stated that till date, possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was not delivered to the complainant. Various requests were made by the complainant, in the matter, but to no avail. It was further stated that the project floated by the Opposite Party, was just a farce.
9.       It was further stated that the Opposite Party collected the huge amount, towards price of the plot, in question, by making a false promise, that physical possession thereof, shall be handed over within the maximum period of 3 years, from 20.06.2007, but it did not abide by its commitment. It was further stated that, as such, the entire sale consideration, deposited by the complainant, in the manner, referred to above, towards the sale price of the plot, was utilized by the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, she was caused huge financial loss.
10.       It was further stated that since the Opposite Party had not offered physical possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, complete in all respects, in favour of the complainant, she was not able to construct house thereon, and reside in the same. It was further stated that, thus, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, to her, and also suffered further financial loss.
11.       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to deliver possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali; pay interest @15% P.A., on the amount of Rs.38,23,649/-, from the respective dates of deposits, till delivery of possession of the same (plot No.215); compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, towards mental agony, physical harassment and escalation in cost of construction; cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-; or any other relief, which this Commission may deem fit.
12.       The Opposite Party was served, and put in appearance, on 04.02.2015. It filed its written version, on 03.03.2015. In the written version, it was pleaded by the Opposite Party, that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was false, frivolous and vexatious, just with a view to harass it (Opposite Party). It was further pleaded that since the complainant did not make any averment, in the complaint that she had no other property/plot/house, in her name, as such, she did not fall within the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as she had purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purposes i.e. for selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, to gain huge profits. It was further pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, as an arbitration clause, existed, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007 Annexure C-3, and, in case of any dispute, the matter was to be referred to the Arbitration. It was admitted that the complainant purchased the plot, in question,  in the manner, referred to, in the consumer complaint, as a result whereof, she was initially allotted plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Central Greens, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab,  @Rs.11,500/- per square yard, plus (+) External Development Charges of Rs.2,01,144/- plus (+) Preferential Location Charges of Rs.3,45,000/-. The total sale consideration, in the sum of Rs.39,96,144/-, of the plot was required to be paid by her. It was also admitted that the amount of Rs.38,23,649/-, towards part price of the plot, in question, was deposited by the complainant. It was also admitted that the complainant qualified for waiver of 5% of the basic sale price i.e. Rs.1,72,000/-, which was given to her, by the Opposite Party. It was also admitted that, as per the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, possession of the plot, in question, was to be delivered to  the  complainant, within a period of 2 years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement). It was, however, stated that it was well within the knowledge of the complainant that time was not the essence of contract and for any delays, stipulated penalty had been provided in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, which safeguarded her rights. It was also admitted that the possession of plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Central Greens, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, could not be delivered by the stipulated date, for want of basic amenities, at the site, as a result whereof, the complainant was relocated to plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, possession whereof was expected to be delivered within three months. It was further stated that relocation to plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was accepted by the complainant, as a result whereof, the Amended Agreement, in respect thereof, was executed between the parties. It was further stated that Preferential Location Charges @12.5% of the basic sale price of plot No.215, Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, were demanded from the complainant, as the same (plot No.215) was facing a major road i.e. preferentially located. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had got clear title of the land, where the project, in question, was launched, from the Competent Authorities. It was further stated that even all the necessary approvals/sanctions had been obtained by the Opposite Party, from the Competent Authorities, in respect of the project, in question. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
13.       The complainant submitted her affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
14.       The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Mr.Sachin Kapoor, its Senior Manager (Legal), and Authorized Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 
15.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.   
16.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. The objection taken by the Opposite Party, that since the complainant did not make any averment, in the complaint that she had no other plot/house, in her name, it means she owned other property/plot/house, and, as such, she did not fall within the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as she had purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, to gain huge profits, does not hold any water. It may be stated here, that the complainant, in para No.20 of her complaint, in clear-cut terms averred that she had to raise construction on the said plot, for her residential purpose. On the other hand, there is nothing, on the record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property. No evidence was also produced by the Opposite Party, to prove its stand, that the complainant owned a number of other residential properties, in the tricity, and, as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices thereof. Otherwise also, the mere fact that it was a residential plot, which was purchased by the complainant, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by her. The complainant, thus, availed of the services of the Opposite Party, for the allotment of a residential plot, in question, with a view to construct house thereon, and reside in the same. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.     
17.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Act, was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of the existence of an arbitration Clause, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3.  With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986, is required to be made, which reads as under ;

“3.Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to   and not in derogation of the provisions of any   other law for the time being in force.”

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of an arbitration Clause, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, would not oust the Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  Similar principle of law, was laid down, in  Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC). In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the  Opposite  Party, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

18.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, time was essence of the contract or not. It may be stated here that Clause 8  of the  Plot Buyer's  Agreement    dated    20.06.2007,     Annexure C-3, clearly stipulated that possession shall be delivered within two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Even after the lapse of more than four years of the execution of Agreement, aforesaid, possession of the plot, in question, was not delivered to the complainant. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
19.       No doubt, the Opposite Party, placed reliance on Smt. Chand Rani (dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Kamal Rani (dead) by LRs., AIR 1993 SC 1742,  and Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 711, to contend that time was not the essence of contract and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to interest and/or compensation. The facts of Smt. Chand Rani's and Bangalore Development Authority's cases (supra), are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Smt. Chand Rani's case (supra), related to the specific performance of contract. It was held that intention to make time as the essence of contract, must be expressed in unequivocal terms in the Agreement. Whereas, in Bangalore Development Authority's cases (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that since in that case, neither any specific date of delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was stipulated nor the time was made the essence of contract, at any stage, nor did the allottee terminate the contract, it could not be held that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellant/builder. It was, under these circumstances held in the said case that time was not the essence of contract. Whereas, in the instant case, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons, beyond the control of the Company, it was to deliver physical possession of the plot, within a period of two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), yet, the same was not delivered till date. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Therefore, no help from the aforesaid cases, can be drawn, by the Opposite Party. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.    
20.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. As stated above, according to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Party, it was to deliver physical possession of plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Central Greens, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), but not later than three years. It is, thus, evident, from this Clause, that the Opposite Party was required to deliver possession of plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Central Greens, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, in favour of the complainant, within the maximum period of three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, i.e. latest by 19.06.2010. As held above, possession of plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Central Greens, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, was not offered nor delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date,   for want of basic amenities at the site.  Even the Opposite Party, showed its inability to deliver possession of plot no.176, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Central Greens, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. No doubt, later on, the complainant was offered relocation to plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, on the ground that possession thereof, would be delivered to her shortly.  The complainant, agreed to relocation of plot No.176, with plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, offered by the Opposite Party. However, even the possession of relocated plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, had not been offered to the complainant, till the date of filing the complaint. No doubt, the Opposite Party averred in its written version, that possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was expected to be delivered to the complainant, within three months, yet, it failed to place, on record, any cogent and convincing evidence, that  development, in respect of the same (plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali) was in progress, as per the Agreement. It, however, failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence, to prove that the area where the relocated plot No.215, was carved, was almost developed, and that possession thereof would be offered to the complainant within three months. On the other hand, the entire sale consideration of the unit, in question, has already been paid, by the time of filing the complaint, but possession of plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was not even offered to the complainant.  By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within the maximum period of three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Party, it (Opposite Party) was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant is certainly entitled to physical possession of the unit, in question.
21.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, in question, by the Opposite Party, by the promised date. No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that  since the complainant had not specifically sought compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, she was not entitled to the same. In the prayer Clause of the complaint, the complainant in clear-cut terms prayed that she may be granted any other relief, which this Commission deemed fit. It may be stated here that in Mrs. Veena Khanna Vs. M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., 2011 (2) CCC 330 (NS), the complainant booked a flat and deposited amount. Flat was not constructed. She filed complaint for refund of the amount alongwith interest only. No relief, with regard to possession of the unit, in question, was sought by the complainant. The State Commission, Delhi, granted refund of the amount deposited by the complainant, or in the alternative, it was directed that if the Opposite Parties chose to hand over possession they could do it. Feeling aggrieved Mrs. Veena Khanna, complainant/appellant, filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein, it was held by it (National Commission), that though no relief was sought by the complainant/appellant, with regard to delivery of possession of the unit, in question, yet, the complaint remained pending before the State Commission, Delhi, for more than five years and during that period, there was a tremendous escalation in the market, in relation to the prices of immovable property. It was further held by the National Commission, that Consumer Fora being not governed by the adversary system procedure, but it is to hold inquisitorial proceedings (inquiry). Hence, in inquisitorial proceedings, the State Commission ought not to have looked only to the prayer made by the complainant,  but ought to have looked into the substance of the matter and granted relief of possession, when the Opposite Parties, stated, in their written statement that they were ready to give possession. In these circumstances, the National Commission granted relief of possession of flat to the complainant. It was also directed that if possession of the flat was not delivered then the Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.7.50 lacs, as compensation, so as to enable the complainant to purchase a flat. It may be stated here, that in the instant case, the Opposite Party, in its written version, in paragraph nos.7 and 18 clearly admitted that the interest of the complainant was safeguarded by the penalty Clause, contained in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3. Thus, the Counsel for the Opposite Party, could not take a contrary stand, at the time of arguments, in respect of payment of compensation/penalty, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement. It is settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation, primarily meant to protect the interests of the consumers. The Consumer Fora, when come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service and/or indulged into unfair trade practice, then it can grant adequate compensation, which may be stipulated under the Agreement executed between the parties and even under Section 14 (d) of the Act. In view of what has been held in Mrs. Veena Khanna's case (supra), by the National Commission, the relief of compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 19.06.2010 (promised date) onwards, on account of delay, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, though not specifically claimed by the complainant, in the complaint, but only she claimed any other relief, but admitted by the Opposite Party, in its written version that her interests were safeguarded on account of payment of the same (compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard), she (complainant) could be granted such relief. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 19.06.2010 (promised date) onwards, on account of delay, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, to the contrary, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
22.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to her, for a long number of years, by not delivering physical possession of the plot, to her, by the Opposite Party, by the promised date i.e. 19.06.2010. The complainant purchased the plot, with the hope to have a roof over her head alongwith with her family members, by raising construction thereon, but her hopes were dashed to the ground. Even the possession of relocated plot No.215, in Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was not offered to the complainant, till date, i.e. even after the expiry of a period of more than about four years, from the promised date  i.e. 19.06.2010, by the Opposite Party, what to speak of delivery thereof. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. Compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party, if granted, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
23.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
24.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

1. The Opposite Party, is directed to hand over physical possession of plot No.215, Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, aforesaid, complete in all respects, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, to the complainant, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount, legally due against her.
2. The Opposite Party, is further directed to execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of plot No.215, Central Park, measuring 300 square yards, Sector 105, Mohali Hills, Mohali, within

 

 

one month from the date handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration charges and stamp duty, by the complainant.

1. The Opposite Party, is further directed to pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month,  to the complainant, from  19.06.2010 (the promised date of delivery of possession), till 28.02.2015, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A., from 19.06.2010, till realization.
2. Compensation accruing due @Rs.50/-per square yard, per month,  w.e.f. 01.03.2015, per month, onwards, shall be paid by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @9 % P.A., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession.
3. The Opposite Party, is further directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, at its hands.
4. The Opposite Party, is further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.
5.  Compensation granted, in favour of the complainant, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as mentioned in Clause (iv),  shall be paid by the Opposite Party, within a period of 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which it shall pay interest @9% P.A., on the same, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

25.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
26.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

March 9, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

Rg.