Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/33/2015

Harpreet Kaur & anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Vermani

12 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	33 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.05.2015

 

1. Harpreet Kaur wife of Sh.Tejinder Singh, resident of House No.80, Phase-II, Mohali.
2. Tania Singh Mokha daughter of Sh.Tejinder Singh, resident of House No.80, Phase-II, Mohali.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, at S.C.O. 120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, 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.Gobind Korla, Advocate for the complainants.

                   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 apartments, in their upcoming project, under the name and style of “The Views”, Sector 105, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, District Mohali, Punjab. In response to the assurance given by the representative of the Opposite Party, with regard to the salient features of the project, aforesaid, the complainants applied for the allotment of an apartment, measuring 1750 square feet, on payment of Rs.7 lacs, as earnest money, vide application dated 20.02.2008.

2.       It was stated that, as such, vide allotment letter dated 10.03.2008 Annexure C-1, the complainants were allotted apartment No.H3-F05-502, measuring 1750 square feet, in “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, S.A.S. Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, alongwith one car parking space. The total cost of the said apartment was to the tune of Rs.57,01,543/-, which included Rs.1,50,000/- per parking bay, Rs.1,96,542.50Ps. towards External Development Charges (EDC), Rs.1,75,000/- towards Preferential Location Charges, and Interest Free Maintenance Charges, to the tune of Rs.17,500/-. Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, in respect of the said apartment, was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh.
3.       It was further stated that the complainants kept on making payment of instalments, towards the said apartment, as per the payment plan opted by them. It was further stated that, as such, by 12.08.2012, the complainants had already made payment of Rs.49,00,176/-, towards the part price of apartment No.H3-F05-502.
4.       It was further stated that according to Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said apartment, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement). It was further stated that it was also mentioned in Clause 23.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, that, in case, the Opposite Party, failed to deliver possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, within the stipulated period, it was liable to pay penalty/compensation, to the complainants, @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per square feet, per month, of the super area, for the period of delay. Thus, the Opposite Party was to deliver possession of the apartment, in question, to the complainants, latest by 09.03.2011.
5.       It was further stated that despite making payment of Rs.49,00,176/-, possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, was not offered to the complainants.  It was further stated that when the complainants visited the site, to see the progress in construction, they came to know that there was no construction, at the site, and saw that there was no scope of delivery of possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, in the near future. It was further stated that the complainants visited the office of the Opposite Party, a number of times, and asked the concerned Officials to apprise them regarding the status of construction and delivery of possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainants also sent an email dated 05.01.2015, Annexure C-3, in the matter, but except vague reply given by the Opposite Party, vide an email dated 15.01.2015, Annexure C-4, nothing positive came out.
6.       It was further stated that the Opposite Party collected the huge amount of Rs.49,00,176/-, towards the part price of apartment, in question, by making a false promise, that physical possession thereof, shall be handed over within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the  Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, but it did not abide by its commitment. It was further stated that, in order to pay the amount towards the said unit, the complainants had obtained loan from the HDFC Limited, for which they had been paying huge interest alongwith the installments. It was further stated that, as such, the amount deposited by the complainants, towards the part price of apartment, was utilized by the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, they were caused huge financial loss. It was further stated that the complainants also underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party neither delivered possession of the apartment, nor refunded the amount deposited by the complainants.
7.       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Party, 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 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to deliver possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502 or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.49,00,176/-, alongwith interest; pay compensation, as per Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,   for the period of delay; Rs.22,54,080/- paid by them towards interest, on the amount of Rs.49,00,176/-,  to the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFCL); compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair practice; and  cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.
8.       The Opposite Party was served and, put in appearance, on 31.03.2015. It filed its written version, on 08.05.2015. In the written version, the Opposite Party, pleaded that since the complainants already owned one house, in their joint names, as also the husband of complainant No.1, who is also the father of complainant No.2, purchased two properties, in its project, as such, they (complainants) did not fall within the definition of consumers, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, meaning thereby, that they (complainants) had purchased apartment No.H3-F05-502, with an intention, to earn profits, after selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate. It was further pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, as an Arbitration Clause existed, in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, and, in case of any dispute, the matter was to be referred to the Arbitration. It was further pleaded that the consumer complaint was also not maintainable, because only a suit for specific performance, for the enforcement of Agreement, could be instituted. It was further pleaded that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of the HDFC Limited, as a necessary party, from which the complainants had obtained loan, in respect of the payment of instalments towards the price of the unit, in question. The factum, with regard to the allotment of apartment No.H3-F05-502, measuring 1750 square feet, in “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, S.A.S. Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, in favour of the complainants, and deposit of the amount, mentioned in the complaint, towards the part price thereof, by them was admitted. It was also admitted that the Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties at Chandigarh, on 10.03.2008,  It was also admitted that, as per Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,  the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said apartment, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement), failing which, as per Clause 23.1 of the same (Apartment), it was liable to pay penalty/compensation, @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per square feet, per month, of the super area, for the period of delay. It was also admitted that possession of the apartment, in question, was not delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date i.e. 09.03.2011, or even till date. It was stated that time was not the essence of contract. It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, could not be delivered to the complainants, for want of basic amenities. It was further stated that final finishing works, in the Tower, in question, in which apartment No.H3-F05-502 was allotted to the complainants, were going on, and possession thereof, was expected to be delivered by March 2016.  It was further stated that it was well within the knowledge of the complainants that for any delays, stipulated penalty had been provided in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, which safeguarded their rights. It was further stated that, in case, the complainants still wanted refund, the same would amount to surrender of the unit, and attract forfeiture charges, as per Clause 21.10, read with Clause 3.2 of the same (Buyer's Agreement). 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.
9.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their own separate affidavits, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
10.       The Opposite Party,  in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sachin Kapoor, its Senior Manager (Legal), by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
11.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
12.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants fell within the definition of consumers, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Party that since Sh.Tejinder Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2, had also purchased two other units i.e. one residential and one commercial, in the project of the Opposite Party, it means that the family of the complainants had purchased three units i.e. two by Mr. Tejinder Singh and one by the complainants i.e. apartment No.H3-F05-502, for commercial purpose, i.e. to resell the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.  It may be stated here that, infact, the complainants booked only one unit, bearing No.H3-F05-502 aforesaid, in the project of the Opposite Party. Whereas, on the other hand,   Mr.Tejinder Singh, in his own name, also booked one residential unit and one commercial unit, in the project of the Opposite Party.  It was not the case of the Opposite Party, that both the residential units, as also the commercial unit, aforesaid, were booked by the complainants, in their (Mr. Tejinder Singh and the complainants) joint names. It may be stated here, that the husband and wife, as also their daughter are separate legal entities. If, Mr. Tejinder Singh, husband of complainant No.1, and father of complainant No.2, booked one residential unit, as also one commercial unit, in his name, and complainant No.1 as also complainant No.2, being his (Mr.Tejinder Singh), wife and daughter, respectively, also booked one unit, separately, that did not mean that they (complainants) did not fall within the definition of  consumers. The parents always make endeavour to settle their children, in a proper manner, by constructing houses for them. It was not that a number of units, were booked by the complainants, in their individual capacity. As stated above, the complainants only purchased the unit, in question, in their joint name. There is no reliable evidence, on the record, that the complainants have a number of other residential units and houses or commercial plots. Even no evidence, was produced by the Opposite Party, that the complainants are the property dealers, and, as such, dealing in the sale and purchase of the property. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that apartment No.H3-F05-502, was purchased by the complainants, by way of investment, with a view to earn huge profits. The complainants, thus, fell within the definition of consumers, 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.
13.       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 Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008.  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 arbitration Clause, in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, 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

14.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, time was the essence of contract or not.  It may be stated here, that, in the instant case, as stated above, as per Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,  the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement). It was further mentioned in Clause 23.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,  that, in case, the Opposite Party  failed to deliver possession of the apartment, in question, within the stipulated period, it was liable to pay penalty/compensation, to the complainants, @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per square feet, per month, of the super area, for the period of delay. Thus, the Opposite Party was to deliver possession of the apartment, in question, to the complainants, latest by 09.03.2011. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15.         No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Party, placed reliance on Smt. Chand Rani (dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Kamal Rani (dead) by LRs., AIR 1993 SC 1742, a case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  to contend that time was not the essence of contract. The facts of  Smt. Chand Rani's case (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. 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 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,  the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said apartment, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement), i.e. latest by 09.03.2011. Even after the expiry of more than about seven years, from the date of allotment of apartment No.H3-F05-502 and more than about four and a half years, from the stipulated date, the possession thereof, was not delivered to the complainants. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Therefore, no help, from the aforesaid case, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the Opposite Party. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, was to be given to the complainants. As stated above, according to Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the apartment No.H3-F05-502, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement). It is, thus, evident, from this Clause, that the Opposite Party was required to deliver possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, in favour of  the complainants, within three years, from the date of execution of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008. Admittedly, possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, was not delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed. Even, in the written version, the Opposite Party frankly admitted that possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, could not be offered to the complainants, on account of non-development at the site, and non-provision of amenities, and the same was expected to be delivered by March 2016.  It means that still the Opposite Party was not sure, as to on which date, possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, would be delivered to the complainants, as it was only expecting the same.  Admittedly,  more than about 85% of the sale consideration of apartment No.H3-F05-502, has already been paid, by the time of filing the complaint, but possession of the same, was not delivered in favour of the complainants.  Now, even as on today, on account of pending development/finishing works, as admitted by the Opposite Party, firm date of possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, could not be given to the complainants. By making a misleading statement by the Opposite Party, that the possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, shall be delivered within three years, from the  date of  execution of  the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008, and by not abiding by the commitments, it (Opposite Party), was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
17.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether,  since the complainants  sought enforcement of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,  in respect of the immoveable property, only a suit for specific performance, under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the Opposite Party, for purchasing apartment No.H3-F05-502 and  they were allotted the same for consideration. According to Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008,  the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement), by providing all the amenities and facilities. It was not that the complainants purchased the unit, 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 same (unit), 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”

18.         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 complainants have 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 them, as they fall within the definition of  consumers, 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.     
19.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.49,00,176/-, admittedly deposited by them, towards the part price of apartment No.H3-F05-502. The complainants, in the complaint have sought delivery of possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502,  or in the alternative to refund the amount, deposited by them, towards the same. The Counsel for the complainants, during the course of final arguments, submitted that, in view of the circumstances of the case, referred to above, the amount deposited by them (complainants), cannot be retained by the Opposite Party, any longer, and, as such, the same may be ordered to be refunded, alongwith interest and compensation. On the other hand, as stated above, the Counsel for the Opposite Party, frankly admitted that even the Opposite Party was not able to deliver the possession of apartment, in question, to the complainants, by providing all amenities, as mentioned in the Agreement, till date, and the same was only expected to be delivered by March 2016, on completion of the ongoing works. As stated above, more than 85% of sale consideration, towards apartment No.H3-F05-502, has been paid by the complainants, but   possession of the same, was not delivered to them, as the same had not been constructed. However, the complainants cannot wait for an indefinite period, at the whims and fancies of the Opposite Party, for delivery of possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502. In our considered opinion, under these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to the refund of amount, deposited by them, towards the part price of apartment No.H3-F05-502.  By not refunding the amount, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service.
20.        The next question that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and from which date. The complainants were deprived of their hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.49,00,176/-, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Party, that they would be handed over legal physical possession of the residential apartment, in question, on or before 09.03.2011, but it failed to do so. The complainants were, thus, caused financial loss.  The hard earned money of the complainants was utilized by the Opposite Party, for a sufficient longer period. Had this amount been deposited by the complainants, in some bank, or had they invested the same, in some business, they would have earned handsome returns thereon. In case of delay, in deposit of installment(s), the Opposite Party had been charging compound interest @15% P.A., from the complainants, as per Clause 20.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008. The complainant are, thus, held entitled to interest on the amount ordered to be refunded to them.  Under   these   circumstances,  in    our  considered opinion,  if   interest @ 12% P.A., on the amount, referred to above,  from the respective dates of deposits, is granted, that will serve the ends of justice
21.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainants. The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation.  It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.  Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Consumer Foras, to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainants. The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, the hard earned money of the complainants was used by the Opposite Party, for a long time, without either delivering physical possession of the residential apartment or refunding the same (amount). The complainants purchased the residential apartment, by depositing a huge amount, with the Opposite Party, in the hope of residing therein, to have a shelter. Their hopes were, however, dashed to the ground, when there was no complete construction of the residential apartment, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof, in the near future arose. The complainants  shall also not be able to purchase the apartment, like the one, in question, at the same rate, at which it was allotted to them, due to escalation in prices. The complainants, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. In this view of the matter, the complainants, in our considered opinion, are entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to them, at the hands of the Opposite Party, as also escalation in prices of the real estate, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs (Two Lacs only) which could be said to be adequate and reasonable.
22.         The Counsel for the complainants, submitted that the complainants, besides refund of the amount, aforesaid, deposited by them, alongwith interest and compensation, were also entitled to penalty @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only), per square feet, per month, of the super area, for the period of delay, as per Clause 23.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 10.03.2008. This submission of the Counsel for the complainants, does not appear to be correct. Such a submission of the Counsel for the complainants, would have been considered to be correct, had the possession of apartment No.H3-F05-502, been ordered by this Commission, to be delivered to the complainants.  In the instant case, since in the circumstances referred to above, it has been held that the complainants are entitled to the refund of amount deposited by them, alongwith interest and compensation,  no such direction regarding payment of penalty/compensation, aforesaid, could be given. The complainants, in our considered opinion, as stated above, are only entitled to the refund of amount, aforesaid, alongwith interest @12% P.A., which (interest) would take care of the financial loss, suffered by them. The submission of the Counsel for the complainants, in this regard, thus, being devoid of merit is rejected.
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, with the directions to the Opposite Party, as under:-
    1. To  refund the amount Rs.49,00,176/-, to  the complainants, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the respective  dates of deposits onwards, within 45 days, from   the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this   order.
    2. HDFC Limited shall have the first charge on the amount ordered to be refunded, in favour of the complainants, to the extent it (amount) was found due to it against them (complainants).
    3. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs (Rs.Two Lacs only), for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices of the real estate, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
    4. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainants.
    5. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (iii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @15 % P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest @12% P.A., on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (iii), 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.

May 12, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg.