Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/180/2014

Jaswant Rai Jindia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajinder Singla

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	180 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	09.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	02/03/2015

 

Jaswant Rai Jindia son of Late Sh. Roshan Lal, age about 84 years, resident of House No.345/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh, now resident of House No.3729, Tynemoore Trce Southeast, Smyrna, Gorgia, U.S.A.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, through its Managing Director/Directors, S.C.O. 120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address:-

Corporate Office: M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, ECE House, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

              ....  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.Rajinder Singla, 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 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, one Mr.Jagdish Kumar Sama, applied for the allotment of an apartment, measuring 1750 square feet, on payment of Rs.7 lacs, as earnest money, on 12.08.2006. It was stated that, subsequently, the complainant purchased the said apartment, from Mr. Jagdish Kumar Sama, and paid him the amount of Rs.7 lacs, which he had paid to the Opposite Party, in respect of earnest money of the said unit. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,95,050/-, towards part price of the said apartment. As such, the unit booked by Mr.Jagdish Kumar Sama, was transferred in the name of the complainant, by the Opposite Party.

2.       The complainant was allotted apartment No.TVM-C1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, in “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, alongwith one car parking space. The total cost of the said apartment was to the tune of Rs.51,42,750/-, which included Rs.1,50,000/- per parking bay, External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.93/- per square feet and Interest Free Maintenance Charges, to the tune of Rs.17,500/-. Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, in respect of the said apartment, was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh.
3.       It was further stated that the complainant kept on making payment of instalments, towards the said apartment, as per the payment plan opted by him. It was further stated that according to Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said apartment, in favour of the complainant, 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 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, 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 complainant, @ 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 complainant, latest by 20.02.2011.
4.       It was further stated that the original allotted apartment No.TVM-C1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, in “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, was changed with apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, on account of the assurance of the Opposite Party, that possession thereof would be delivered soon and the complainant may shift, in the same, at the earliest. It was further stated that addendum Agreement dated 05.10.2011, Annexure C-6, in respect of apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, was also executed between the parties.
5.       It was further stated that by 27.08.2014, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.49,79,223/-, alongwith delayed payment interest, to the tune of Rs.90,812/-, to the Opposite Party, in respect of apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab. It was further stated that despite making payment of Rs.49,79,223/-, alongwith delayed payment interest, to the tune of Rs.90,812/-, to the Opposite Party, possession of apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, was not delivered to the complainant.
6.       It was further stated that since the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the apartment, in question, the complainant served legal notice dated 03.11.2014, and  sought refund of the amount of Rs.49,79,223/-, alongwith delayed payment interest, to the tune of Rs.90,812/-, but the Opposite Party failed to do so.
7.       It was further stated that the Opposite Party collected the amount of Rs.49,79,223/-, 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 Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, but it did not abide by its commitment. It was further stated that, as such, the amount deposited by the complainant, towards the part price of apartment, was utilized by the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, he was caused huge financial loss. It was further stated that the complainant 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.
8.       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 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 refund the amount of Rs.49,79,223/-, alongwith delayed payment interest, of Rs.90,812/-, alongwith interest @24% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, escalation in prices, deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair practice; and  cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
9.       The Opposite Party, put in appearance, on 19.01.2015, and filed its written version, on 23.02.2015. In the written version, the Opposite Party, pleaded that the complaint being gross abuse of the process of law, was liable to be dismissed, at the very threshold. It was further pleaded that the complainant had approached this Commission, with unclean hands, and suppressed the material facts. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as he being a Foreign National, had purchased the unit, in question, 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 barred by time. The factum, with regard to the allotment of unit, No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, in favour of the complainant and deposit of the amount, mentioned in the complaint, towards the part price thereof, by him was admitted. It was denied that delayed payment interest of Rs.90,182/- was paid by the complainant. It was also admitted that, as per Clause 21.1 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said apartment, in favour of the complainant, 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 complainant, by the stipulated date i.e. 20.02.2011. It was stated that the complainant defaulted, in making payment of instalments, towards the said unit. It was further stated that even a number of reminders were sent to the complainant, for making timely payment of instalments, towards the said unit, but to no avail. It was further stated that all the necessary permissions were obtained by the Opposite Party, from the Competent Authorities. It was further stated that time was not the essence of contract. It was further stated that it was well within the knowledge of the complainant that for any delays, stipulated penalty had been provided in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008,  Annexure C-2, which safeguarded his rights. It was further stated that, no doubt, there was some delay, in the delivery of possession of the unit, in question, yet, when the same was offered to the complainant, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.), by sending the same, through Aramex Courier, receipt whereof is at page 116 of the file, it was not accepted. It was further stated that this letter was received by the complainant, in America, as is evident from the shipment details at page 117, wherein against the column delivered to, it was clearly mentioned as “Delivered at Front Door signed for”. It was further stated that even occupation certificate, in respect of the said unit, was obtained by the Opposite Party, from the Competent Authority. It was further stated that the complainant was, however, adamant for the refund of amount deposited by him. It was further stated that relocation of the apartment was done, on the basis of request made by the complainant. It was further stated that the amount demanded by the Opposite Party, from the complainant, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.), was legally due against him. It was further stated that since the possession had already been offered to the complainant, the amenities were complete, at the site in terms of the Agreement, and, in case, he (complainant) 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.
10.       The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his own affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
11.       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.
12.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
13.       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 complainant, no doubt, is a Non-Resident Indian, (NRI), and is settled in USA. It was the residential apartment, which was purchased by the complainant. The mere objection of the Opposite Party, that the complainant is a permanent citizen of America, though, originally belonged to India, and, thus, did not purchase the residential apartment, in India, with a view to have his residence, in the same, for the purpose of his permanent settlement, but, on the other hand, being speculator/investor, he purchased the same (apartment), for resale thereof, as and when there was escalation, in prices, and, as such, he did not fall within  the definition of a ‘consumer’, as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, does not carry any weight and the same deserves to be rejected. The mere fact that it was a residential flat, which was purchased by the complainant, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by him, may be off and on, on his visit to India, or for the purpose of his residence, permanently. 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 residential apartment, 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, or to rent out the same. No law of the land, debars NRI, though originally belonging to India, to purchase a residential property, in India, with a view to reside therein. The complainant, thus, availed of the services of the Opposite Party, for consideration, for the purchase of residential apartment, in question, with a view to 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.
14.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. It may be stated here, that the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, in respect of apartment No.TVM-C1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, was executed between the parties, possession whereof was to be delivered by 19.02.2011.  Later on, on the request of the complainant the said apartment, was changed to TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab. Possession of apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, was not offered to the complainant, by 19.02.2011. Possession of apartment No. TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, was finally offered by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.). Since the offer of possession, in respect of the said apartment was made, for the first time, only on 19.11.2014, the complaint having been filed on 09.12.2014, could very well be said to be within limitation. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,  in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15.       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 Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said apartment, in favour of the complainant, 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 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, 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 complainant, @ 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 complainant, latest by 20.02.2011. 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.
16.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, all the amenities at the site, as per the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, where the unit, in question, was allotted to the complainant was complete, or not, before the possession was offered to him, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.). As stated above, possession of apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, was offered to the complainant, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.) i.e. before filing the complaint and demand of Rs.14,98,539/-, was also made from him. Even, occupancy certificate dated 04.08.2014, at page 116 (doubly marked) of the file, in respect of the entire Tower, wherein the apartment, in question, is located, was granted by the Greater Mohali Area and Development Authority (GMADA), the Competent Authority. It means the Competent Authority granted occupation certificate, in respect of the entire Tower, wherein the apartment, in question, is located, only after verifying that all the amenities, which were promised to be provided by the Opposite Party, as per the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, were in existence at the site. On the other hand, no expert evidence, was produced by the complainant, to the effect that the amenities, which were promised by the Opposite Party, as per the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2,, were not in existence, at the site. It is, therefore, held that the version of the Opposite Party that it was in possession of all the requisite permissions as also the amenities, as promised, in the Agreement, were available at the site, and, as such, the offer of possession made to the complainant, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.) was a genuine one. The said letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.) was sent to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, through Aramex Courier, receipt whereof is at page 116 of the file, which was received by him (complainant), in America, as is evident from shipment details at page 117, wherein against the column delivered to, it was clearly mentioned “Delivered at Front Door signed for” on 26.11.2014. Thus, the complainant cannot wriggle out the letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.). Had this letter dated 19.11.2014, been sent to the complainant through ordinary post and had there been no cogent evidence, with regard to the mode of sending the same, to him, at his address, in U.S.A., the matter would have been different. It is, thus, abundantly proved that the complainant was only interested in the refund of amount deposited, on the false pretext of no development at the site and non-existence of the requisite amenities. The case of the complainant that he never received the letter Annexure OP/2 (colly.) dated 19.11.2014 offering him possession is, thus, belied from the aforesaid cogent documentary evidence produced by the Opposite Party. The complainant, thus, avoided the taking of possession of the unit, in question. This amounted to the cancellation of allotment, and surrender of unit, on the part of the complainant.
17.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount, if so, to what extent.  Clauses 3.1, 3.2 and 21.10 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2,  read as under:-

“3.1 The Allottee has entered into this Agreement on the condition that out of the amount paid/payable by the Allottee towards the Sale Price including the parking spaces allotted, the Company shall treat 10% (ten percent) of the Sale Price of the Apartment as Earnest Money (hereinafter referred to as the “Earnest Money”).

3.2. The Allottee hereby agrees that the Company shall have the right to forfeit out of the amounts paid/payable by the Allottee, the Earnest Money as aforementioned in the event of the failure of the Allottee to perform its obligations or non-fulfillment of all/any of the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement executed by the Allottee or in the event of failure of the Allottee to sign and return this Agreement in its original form to the Company within thirty (30) days from the date of its dispatch by the Company.

21.10. It is agreed by the Allottee that in the event of the failure of the Allottee to take the possession of the said Apartment in the manner as aforestated, then the Company shall have the option to cancel this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement of the Company or the Company may, without prejudice to its right under any of the clauses of this Agreement and at its sole discretion, decide to condone the delay by the Allottee in taking over the possession of the said Apartment in the manner as stated in this clause on the condition that the Allottee shall pay to the Company the following amount”

18.           Perusal of the contents of the afore-extracted Clauses 3.1, 3.2 and 21.10 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, make it clear, that the Company was to treat 10% as earnest money, out of the total sale price of the plot, which was to be paid by the complainant. It is further evident, from the afore-extracted Clauses that, if the allottee failed to perform his obligations or non-fulfillment of all/any of the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement executed by him i.e. he chose to cancel the unit, then the Opposite Party was entitled to forfeit 10% of the earnest money, out of the total sale price of the unit, in question, paid/payable by him. As stated above, the complainant was not interested in taking possession of the unit, in question, without any valid reason, despite the fact that the same was offered to him, vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.), before filing the complaint, and sought refund of the amount. Thus, the Agreement between the parties, stood rescinded. This amounted to the surrender of unit, in question. Under these circumstances, the complainant could not be held entitled to the refund of entire amount, deposited by him. As per the Clauses, extracted above, the Opposite Party, was entitled to forfeit 10% of the sale price, from the amount, deposited by the complainant, which comes to be Rs.5,14,275/- (i.e. Rs.51,42,750/- being the sale price, as is evident from page 54 (payment schedule) minus (-) 10% of the same). It is, therefore, held that the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount, to the tune of Rs.44,64,948/- [i.e. Rs.49,79,223/- (amount paid as per statement of account Annexure C-9 at page 90) minus (-) Rs.5,14,275/- being 10% of the sale price of Rs.51,42,750/-]. By not refunding this amount, as per the aforesaid Clause of the Agreement, when the complainant sought cancellation of the unit, and requested for refund, the Opposite Party, was certainly deficient, in rendering service, thereby causing financial loss to him.
19.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is, entitled to the refund of said amount of Rs.44,64,948/-, with interest. It may be stated here, that ‘Interest’ in general terms is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another.  In its narrow sense, ‘interest’ is understood to mean the amount, which one has contracted to pay for use of borrowed money.  In whatever category ‘interest’ in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration, paid either for the use of money, or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and, thus, it is a charge for the use or forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by the parties, or permitted by custom or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or for the delay in paying money after it has become payable. The interest is granted, for improper and illegal retention of the amount deposited by the complainant, with the Opposite Party, by the latter, for a long time. The possession was promised to be delivered, as per the Agreement, by 19.02.2011. It was, on the other hand, offered vide letter dated 19.11.2014 i.e. about 3 years and 9 months of the promised date. The amount deposited by the complainant and his predecessor towards 95% of the price of the unit from 12.08.2006 onwards was utilized by the Opposite Party for a long number of years, by investing the same in its building activities, without rendering any service to him. The complainant was, thus, illegally and improperly deprived of the use of money deposited with the Opposite Party, for a sufficient longer period without any service having been rendered to him. It has been held above that since the complainant failed to accept the offer of possession, sent to him vide letter dated 19.11.2014, Annexure OP/2 (colly.), the contract stood rescinded, and the Opposite Party was entitled to forfeit 10% of the sale price, which constituted the earnest money. The complainant, thus, stood penalized, by invoking the forfeiture Clause, on account of non-acceptance of the offer of possession, without any rhyme or reason. He, thus, cannot be penalized twice, by not granting interest to him, at a reasonable rate, on the amount to which he is entitled. The equities are required to be balanced, by not enriching one party, at the cost of other. For the financial loss, which the complainant suffered, interest @ 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.44,64,948/- if granted, could be said to be just, fair and reasonable. Thus, in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.44,64,948/- calculated, in the manner, referred to above, alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposit. 
20.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, or not. 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, after making payment of Rs.49,79,223/- i.e. more than 95%, towards the price of apartment No.TVM-G1-F05-501, measuring 1750 square feet, “The Views”, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali, Punjab, possession thereof, was not offered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, but was offered after a delay of about 3 years and 9 months, as a result whereof, he cancelled the allotment of unit and sought refund of the amount deposited by him,  but the Opposite Party failed to do so, after deducting 10% of the sale price, as per the Clauses, referred to above,  of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 21.02.2008, Annexure C-2, thereby causing tremendous mental agony, physical harassment and injustice to him. On account of this act of the Opposite Party, the complainant was dragged into unnecessary litigation. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to compensation, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of this reason.
21.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
22.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
    1. The Opposite Party is  directed to refund the amount of Rs.44,64,948/- [i.e. Rs.49,79,223/- (amount paid as per statement of account Annexure C-9 at page 90) minus (-) Rs.5,14,275/- being 10% of the sale price of Rs.51,42,750/-] to the complainant, 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. The Opposite Party is  further directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, by not refunding the amount of Rs.44,64,948/-, when asked for by him,  within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
    3. The Opposite Party is  further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.
    4. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), 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 (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
23.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
24.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

March 2, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg.