Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/178/2015

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Lakhbir Singh, Adv.

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint Case No.	:	178 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	20.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	20.11.2015

 

Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh.Sujan Singh r/o 1387/1 Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, Sector 70, Mohali.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, through its Managing Directors/Directors, SCO No.120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

               .... Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

               MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

               MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

             

Argued by:  

 

Sh. Lakhbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            

               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was doing a private job at Tristar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and he was not having any residential property in the tricity or any other part of country, and he was residing in rented accommodation. Initially, plot No.293, measuring 300 sq. yds. in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, Mohali, was booked by one Sh.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja in the project of the Opposite Party, vide Agreement dated 04.07.2007 (Annexure C-1) and the total price of the plot, in question, was Rs.40,50,354/-, which included Basic Sale Price, EDC and PLC. Sh.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja had paid booking amount of Rs.10,35,000/- plus first installment of Rs.7,49,814/- and at the time of booking, discount of Rs.1,16,438/- was given by the Opposite Party. Thus, total cost after discount was calculated as Rs.39,33,416/-.

2.             It was stated that Sh.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja offered the said plot to the complainant, as per the conditions described in the Agreement. The complainant was in need of his own residential property and it was difficult for him to purchase the property in Chandigarh because of high price, therefore, he accepted the said offer and filed the necessary application/affidavit dated 30.05.2008 before the Opposite Party and, thereafter, the plot was endorsed in his favour.  The complainant was required to pay the remaining amount of Rs.21,53,103/- to the Opposite Party as per Schedule of Payment (Annexure C-2). The complainant also took the loan of Rs.25 lacs from HDFC Bank vide statement (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Buyer’s Agreement dated 04.07.2007, the Opposite Party was bound to give possession of the plot by 03.07.2010 i.e. within 36 months of the date of execution of the Agreement but it failed to hand over the same within prescribed period, despite complete requisite payments. Copies of statement of account is Annexure C-4 and the table showing the dates, on which, the complainant paid the amounts and receipts are Annexure C-5 (Colly.).

3.             It was averred that the complainant had paid the total amount of Rs.39,37,916/- including Rs.4000/- as delayed charges to the Opposite Party. The complainant requested the Opposite Party by visiting its office for the possession of the plot, but to no avail. Copies of the letters communicated between the complainant and the Opposite Party are Annexure C-6 (Colly.). It was further averred that as per their own commitment in the Agreement, the Opposite Party was duty bound to pay compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month on account of delay in giving the possession of the plot but the same was not paid by it. It was pleaded that inspite of having made the complete payment with respect of the plot, the Opposite Party did not give possession of the plot because it failed to complete the development work at the site. The complainant visited the project site of the Opposite Party and found that project site is still not approachable because there were no proper roads, at all, at the site, as promised and the facility of water connection, street light and sewerage is still under construction. Therefore, the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service and 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.

4.            The Opposite Party, in its written statement, pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a “consumer” as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he being property dealer/channel partner of the Opposite Party and purchased and sold a number of plots/flats of the Opposite Party as well as various other Companies/Builders. It was stated that the complainant himself admitted that he is channel partner and mentioned himself to be Managing Director of his venture “Dream Ashiana” vide letter dated 26.04.2013 (Annexure R-1) and also attached Annexure R-2 i.e. relevant extract of Business Development Agreement (BDA) executed between the parties. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased the plot, in question, from the secondary market and executed an independent Agreement to sell with the earlier allottee. Further, the complainant is already a owner in possession of House No.1387/1, Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, Sector 70, Mohali and purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purposes/speculation. It was pleaded that in order to expedite the possession to the complainant, he was relocated to plot No.109-MLU-116-300 vide letter dated 05.05.2012 and the said relocation was done on the request of the complainant. However, the complainant changed his mind and vide letter dated 30.05.2012, again sought relocation. Subsequently, as an exception and having regard to the congenial relations between the parties, the allotment was relegated to the original plot i.e. 109-AG-293-300 vide letter dated 11.09.2012. Copies of the letters dated 05.05.2012, 30.05.2012 and 11.09.2012 are Annexure R-3 (Colly.). It was further pleaded that the complainant never sought possession in a time bound manner and had agreed to wait for the possession of the plot, in question, and had condoned the delay and agreed to accept delayed compensation, as per the Agreement. So, the proposed date of possession would have to be reckoned from 11.09.2012 and not 04.07.2007.

5.             It was further stated that the complaint is not maintainable as Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the original allottee and Opposite Party was a contract concerning the immovable property/plot and no service was to be provided by it, as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. It was further pleaded that this Commission has got no Jurisdiction, to entertain the complaint, as it was specifically mentioned in Clause No.39 of the Agreement that all the disputes shall be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As such, the complainant ought to be relegated to the remedy of Arbitration, as provided in the aforesaid clause. It was stated that original allottee of the plot was Mr.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja and he was provisionally allotted the plot/unit vide letter dated 23.05.2007. Thereafter, the said unit was transferred in the name of the complainant on 02.06.2008 on completion of relevant formalities.                                                   It was further stated that, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement,  possession of the plot, in question, was proposed to be delivered to  the  complainant, within a period of 36 months, from the date of signing the Agreement and in case of delay, compensation shall be payable as per the terms of the Agreement. The payment of compensation, if any, is to be taken up at the time of final handover/registration. Further, it was stated that it is well settled principle of law that in cases of sale of immovable property and construction, time is never regarded as the essence of the contract. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to claim possession within any time bound manner, as the same would amount to specific performance of the contract.  The complainant was bound to pay the installments on time, as per the payment schedule, but he failed to pay the same on time and, as such, delayed payment charges were levied. Copies of reminders asking the complainant to pay the due installments are Annexure R-4 (Colly.).  It was further stated that few amenities at the plot of the complainant not complete, so the possession could not be offered to him. 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.

6.             In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.

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

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

9.             The first question, that falls for consideration before us 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 allegations of the Opposite Party is that the complainant  is a property dealer/channel partner, purchased and sold a number of plots/flats of the Opposite Party as well as various other builders and the complainant himself admitted that he is channel partner and mentioned himself to be Managing Director of his venture “Dream Ashiana” vide letter dated 26.04.2013 (Annexure R-1) and also in Agreement (Annexure R-2) ; the complainant is already owner in possession of House No.1387/1, Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, Sector 70, Mohali and purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purposes/speculation, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected. On the other hand, it was clarified by the complainant in his replication that the plot, in question, was endorsed in favour of the complainant on 30.05.2008 and possession of the same was supposed to be delivered by the Opposite Party till 03.07.2010. It was stated by the complainant that till the year 2011, he was working as Sr. Manager at Tristar Trading Private Limited, Plot No.815, Phase II, Ind. Area, Chandigarh. To prove this, the complainant also placed on record Salary Certificate issued by Tri-Star Trading Pvt. Limited (Annexure C-7 Colly.) and the said document was issued by the Managing Director of the Company, in which, it is clearly stated that Mr.Gurmeet Singh, r/o House No.1020, First Floor, Phase 4, Mohali is working with the Company from the last 2 yrs. as Manager Sales and drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The complainant has also placed on record copy of promotion letter dated 03.04.2008 issued by Tri-Star Trading Pvt. Ltd., wherein, he was promoted from Manager Sales to A.G.M (Assistant General Manager) w.e.f. 01.04.2008.  The complainant has also placed on record copy of Individual Loan Application Form issued by HDFC Bank. In the said document, from the column ‘Qualifications & Designation’, it is clearly written as A.G.M. and in the column ‘Employer/Business Name and Address’, it is clearly written as ‘TRISTAR TRADING PVT. LTD. SCO 21, 1st Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.’ The complainant has also placed on record copies of Income Tax Returns. The complainant has clarified in his replication that he is working as Business Development Associate (BDA) since 03.10.2011 and assisted the Opposite Party to procure booking/selling of plots/flats/villas/commercial plots/units /offices in its project. The complainant has specifically denied that he is a property dealer and stated that he has not purchased any plot for resale from the Opposite Party or from any other Company.  With regard to the ownership of House No.1387/1, Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, Sector 70, Mohali is concerned, it is stated by the complainant in his rejoinder that the owner of House No.1020, First Floor, Phase 4, Mohali, where he was living on rent, was repeatedly asking him to vacate the house at the earliest and under such circumstances, he was compelled to purchase the said flat on 31.05.2010. Even the concerned authorities issued the Certificate, in this regard, is Annexure 8. He further stated that the said flat is not having sufficient space, where the complainant could live comfortably with his parents and other family members. With regard to the objection of the Opposite Party that  the complainant purchased the plot, in question, from the secondary market is concerned, no doubt, the complainant purchased the plot from the previous allottee i.e. Sh.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja, which was endorsed in his favour, by the Opposite Party, without any objection and, as such, terms and conditions thereof were binding upon the complainant and the Opposite Party. The complainant, having stepped into the shoes of previous allottee, was a consumer qua Opposite Party. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential plot, which was, thereafter, endorsed in favour of the complainant, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by the complainant. 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 that the complainant owned a number of other residential properties, in the tricity, and, as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by him, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Recently, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, 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. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja's case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the plot, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

10.           The contention of the Opposite Party that an Agreement, which was executed between the parties, was a contract concerning the immovable property/plot and no service was to be provided by the Opposite Party as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party, for purchasing the plot, in question, and he was allotted the same for consideration.  It is not the case of the Opposite Party that the complainant purchased the plot, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis”, without any further promise of the Opposite Party, of providing amenities/facilities, and developing the area, where the unit, in question, is situated.  Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing  construction, entertainment, amusement  or the purveying  of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit, for specific performance, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under  Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of  a consumer, as stated above. 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.

11.           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 reason, that an Arbitration Clause existed, in the Agreement. It may be stated here that a similar question fell for determination, before this Commission, in a case titled as Sh.Dharampal Gupta Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, consumer complaint No.147 of 2015 decided on 13.10.2015, wherein, heavy reliance was placed by the Opposite Parties therein, upon ratio of Sudarshan Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. and another's Vs. Madhusudan Guha and another (2013) 1 CALLT 546 (Calcutta HC)  and M/s S.B.P. and Co.'s cases (supra) to support above argument. In Sh.Dharampal Gupta's case (supra), further reliance was placed on a judgment rendered by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, at Chandigarh, titled as Raj Kumar Singal Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited and another, Miscellaneous Application Nos.1226 and 1227 of 2014, in Consumer Complaint No.60 of 2014. However, by noting ratio of the judgments mentioned above and on making reference to the ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) = (1996 (6) SCC 385, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC), it was firmly held that remedy provided under Section 3 of the 1986 Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. It was specifically observed that ratio of judgment passed in M/s S.B.P. and Co.'s case (supra), will not debar a Consumer Fora from entertaining a complaint, even in cases where an alternative remedy of Arbitration is provided. Similar view was taken by the National Commission, in a case titled as DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013. Vide that judgment many Revision-Petitions were decided. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2013, passed by the National Commission, Rosedale Developers Private Limited/Opposite Party challenged that order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by making reference to the ratio of  judgment in the case M/s S.B.P. and Co.'s case (supra),  observed that the judgment has no bearing on the issue, as to whether in the face of an Arbitration Clause, Jurisdiction  can be exercised by a Consumer Fora or not. In the above judgment, the Supreme Court had not interpreted the provisions of 1986 Act in the light of the provisions contained in 1996 Act. It was further observed that the observation made in that judgment that Section 8 of the 1996 Act, is mandatory, cannot lead to an inference that the Consumer Fora is bound to make reference to the Arbitral Tribunal. The ratio of judgment of Sh.Dharampal Gupta's case (supra), wherein the issue regarding Arbitration Clause was dealt with and clarified by this Commission, while placing reliance on various judgments, in the manner, referred therein, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, it is held that submission of the Counsel for Opposite Party, that the consumer complaint was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of existence of an arbitration Clause in the Agreement, being devoid of merit, and stands rejected.

12.           The next question, that falls for consideration before us is, as to whether, the complainant was at fault in not accepting the relocated plot, as allotted by the Opposite Party. The answer, to this question, is in the negative. It is, no doubt, true that originally the plot, in question, was allotted to Sh.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja and the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between Sh.Inder Mohan Singh Ahuja and the Opposite Party on 04.07.2007 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, the plot was endorsed in favour of the complainant. As per Annexure C-2, the total cost of the plot was Rs.40,50,354/-, out of which, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.39,37,916/- (Annexure C-5). It is also the admitted fact that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party was bound to give possession of the plot within 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. by 03.07.2010 but the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the plot within the prescribed period, despite complete requisite payments, as per Annexure C-4 and Annexure C-5 (Colly.). According to the complainant, by that time no development work was initiated by the Opposite Party at the project site in Sector 109. The land at the site was filled with pits, ditches and the area was inundated with water. The complainant specifically stated in their rejoinder that there were no approach/connecting roads, no proper internal roads, no water and drainage system, no street lights and there was not even a semblance of any development being carried out in Sector 109, where the complainant was allotted the plot. The Opposite Party has placed on record copy of letter dated 05.05.2012 (Annexure R-3 Colly.), which was sent to the complainant, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the Opposite Party received a request from the complainant vide email dated 27.02.2012 for relocation of plot. As such, the Opposite Party allotted Plot No.109-MLU-116-300 at Mohali Hills, Mohali in place of Plot No.109-AG-293-300. However, the Opposite Party did not place on record copy of the email dated 27.02.2012 received from the complainant for relocation. It is also proved from the aforesaid letter dated 05.05.2012 (Annexure R-3 Colly.) that PLC (Preferential Location Charges) in the sum of Rs.4,31,250/- has already paid by the complainant. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30.05.2012 (at page No.111 of the file), the complainant requested the Opposite Party to relocate the plot because when the complainant visited the site, he found that there were high tension wires near that plot, which was harmful for health, as parents of the complainant are staying with him. Therefore, he refused to accept the said plot. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party relocated to Plot No.109-MLU-116-300 to the complainant without asking for his choice. Thereafter, no other plot was offered to him. Even when the complainant paid Preferential Location Charges of Rs.4,31,250/- to the Opposite Party, the complainant is having full right to chose the plot of his own choice but it did not do so and relocated the plot to the complainant, at the choice of the Opposite Party. Moreover, the Opposite Party itself stated in para No.7 of its written statement that ‘The Opposite Party is developing a huge area/land and as the amenities at the plot of complainant have not been completed so the possession has not been offered yet. The complainant was relocated to a plot wherein the possession could have been offered at the earliest, however, after given consent to relocation, the complainant back-tracked. In such an event, the proposed date of possession has to be reckoned from the date when the allotment of the complainant has been relegated to the plot, in question, i.e. from 11.09.2012.’ So, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Party failed to complete the amenities at the site, so the proposed date of possession has to be reckoned from the date when the allotment of the complainant has been relegated to the plot, in question, from 11.09.2012 instead of 04.07.2007, has no value, at all. Even as per Clause 8 of the Agreement dated 04.07.2007 the possession was to be handed over to the complainant by 03.07.2010 but till the date of filing the complaint i.e. 20.08.2015, the Opposite Party failed to deliver physical possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant. So, we are of the view that the complainant was not at fault in not accepting the relocation of the plot. 

13.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.39,37,916/-, deposited by him, towards the price of said plot. It may be stated here, that, as stated above, it is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party has failed to discharge its part of the contract in not delivering possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated time i.e. by 03.07.2010 or by the date when the complaint was filed and till date. The relocation offered by the Opposite Party was not accepted by the complainant, on account of the reason that high tension wires were passing near the relocated plot. Even otherwise, it was not binding upon the complainant to accept relocation.  As stated above, the Opposite Party failed to deliver physical possession of the plot, in question, within stipulated time frame. Now, the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period for offer of possession of the plot, in question, at the whims and fences of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the plot, in question. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.39,37,916/-,  deposited by him, towards price of the said plot. The complainant was, thus, caused financial loss.  Hard-earned money, deposited by the complainant, towards the plot, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Party, for a number of years. In case of delay, in deposit of installment(s), the Opposite Party had been charging interest @15% P.A., compounded at the time of every succeeding installment, from the complainant, as per Clause 3 of the Agreement. It is, therefore, held that the Opposite Party, by neither delivering physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, by the stipulated date, nor refunding the amount to the complainant, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to refund of the deposited amount of Rs.39,37,916/- alongwith interest compounded quarterly @15%, from the respective dates of deposits.

14.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment or not. After making payment of Rs.39,37,916/-, towards price of the plot, in question,  no progress was made by the Opposite Party, at the site, by the stipulated date. Not only this, as held above, still the Opposite Party is not in a position to deliver actual physical possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant. The complainant had purchased the said plot, to have a roof over his head, for his family members, by constructing a house thereon, but his hopes were dashed to the ground, when possession of the same was not delivered to him. The complainant, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party.  The complainant, is, thus, entitled to compensation, to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs, on account of this reason.

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

16.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Party is held liable and directed as under:-

1. To refund the deposited amount of  Rs.39,37,916/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest compounded quarterly @15% , from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2.00 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3.  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of  Rs.33,000/-, to the complainant.
4. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned above in Clauses (i) to (iii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the same shall carry penal interest compounded quarterly @18%   till the date, the same is actually paid to the complainant.

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

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

Pronounced.

20.11.2015

 Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

rb