Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/543/2014

Kabir Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Bhardwaj

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/543/2014
Date of Institution	:	13/08/2014
Date of Decision	:	21/09/2016

 

 

Kabir Khanna s/o Sh. Vishwa Bandhu Khanna, resident of House No.1747, Sector 4, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Registered Office, ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its General Manager/Authorised representative.

2.     M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Branch Office SCO 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Kabir Khanna, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs) for directing the OPs to pay interest @ 15% on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority i.e. GMADA; to pay Rs.50/- per sq. yards in accordance with clause 8 of the agreement from 21^st June 2010 till the date of issuance of completion certificate; to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice; to withdraw the illegal demand/charges and also pay cost of litigation amounting to Rs.51,000/-.

                The facts, in brief, are that the OPs floated a scheme for the allotment of plots in their project known as ‘Mohali Hills’ at Sector 105, Mohali.  The OPs assured that the possession of the plot would be handed over in the specified time alongwith all the basic amenities. The complainant was told that the basic sale consideration of the plot was Rs.34,50,000/-. The total price of the plot including external development charges and preferential location charges was informed to be Rs.40,82,394/-.  Believing the assurances of the OPs, the complainant applied for allotment of a plot and paid Rs.11,10,000/- towards the registration amount vide receipt dated 6.11.2006. The permissions for the start of construction and the approvals of the project were not shown to the complainant at the time of accepting the booking amount on the pretext that the same were under process and would be sent alongwith the allotment letter.  It is alleged that after receiving the registration amount the OPs issued the allotment letter for plot No.89 measuring 300 sq. yards in Central Park, Sector 105 at Mohali to the complainant. However, no permissions/approvals were sent alongwith the letter. The buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on 20.6.2007 and the complainant opted for time linked payment plan and paid all the installments in time. The complainant was told to send the duplicate copy of the consent letter on or before 28.2.2009 for availing the benefit of 5% waiver of the last installment, which was done by him in time. 

                It is further the case of the complainant that as per clause 8 of the agreement, the OPs were bound to hand over the possession of the apartment within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement. The date of execution of the agreement was 20.6.2007 and the possession was to be delivered on 19.6.2010.  It was also mentioned that the company shall be liable to pay to the allottee a penalty of the sum of Rs.50/- per sq. yards per month for the period of delay beyond three years from the date of execution of the agreement. The OPs in order to save themselves from the enforcement of the aforesaid clause, issued a letter dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure C-9) to the complainant to the effect that the OPs were ready to hand over the possession of the plot to him and he was asked to make payment mentioned in the letter.  However, when the complainant visited the site, he was shocked to see that there was no such progress as was being projected by the OPs in their letters, therefore, he did not consent for the possession of the incomplete project. The OPs again issued a letter dated 16.12.2011 informing that they have initiated community development works like parks, golf course, roads, electrical lighting and setting up of STP (Sewerage Treatment Plan), Rain Water Harvesting System and the electrical sub stations. It was also conveyed that on completion of the works and after receipt of the completion certificate from GMADA, they would start the process of execution and registration of the sale deeds and shall also keep the complainant updated on further development.  When the complainant raised a protest, OPs admitted the non-issuance of the completion certificate and informed him that they would contact him immediately upon the issuance of the completion certificate. It is alleged that the OPs remained silent till 2014 and vide letter dated 8.1.2014 informed the complainant about the final dues.  Hence, this complaint praying for the reliefs mentioned above.

2.         The OPs in their written statement resisted the complaint, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed with costs; the complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting material facts; the complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature and has been filed with the sole intention of harassing the OPs; the complaint is time barred as the same has been filed 2 years after the accrual of alleged cause of action. The grievance of the complainant is that no effective possession was ever offered to him and as such he is claiming interest and penalty when admittedly the possession was offered vide letter dated 17.5.2010 and reminder sent on 16.12.2011 to take over possession and initiate construction, which he has failed to do till date.   The prayer sought in the complaint cannot be granted as the same is beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement as also statutory provisions.  The complainant has prayed that interest/penalty be paid till issuance of completion certificate. It is pleaded that no completion certificate was to be obtained by the OPs from the Government of Punjab.  It is stated that in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 44 (2) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short hereinafter referred as PAPRA Act) and all other powers enabling him to act in his behalf, the Governor of Punjab was pleased to exempt the aforesaid Housing Project of the OPs from the provisions of the PAPRA Act vide notification dated 11.8.2006.  Hence there was no requirement for the OPs to obtain any completion certificate. It is alleged that the OPs sent a specific letter to the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing & Urban Development, Government of Punjab on 30.5.2013 seeking clarification on whether Emaar MGF (OP) was exempted from section 14 of PAPRA Act and in response thereto reply on behalf of the Chief Administrator, PUDA dated 10.6.2013 was sent to the OPs which clearly stated that the OPs had been granted exemption under the PAPRA Act including exemption under Section 14 of the PAPRA Act.  It is further alleged that the complainant is claiming interest till completion certificate is granted which relief cannot be granted.  The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum was also denied. The OPs denied all the contentions of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant argued that in order to escape their liability, the OPs issued a letter asking the complainant to take the possession, but, the possession could not be taken by the complainant as the OPs have failed to complete the project. He argued that on the spot no infrastructure has been provided. Even no completion certificate has been obtained so far.  As such, as per condition No.8 of the agreement, the complainant is entitled to Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month as penalty till the issuance of the completion certificate by the competent authority i.e. GMADA and till the possession is offered.  He further argued that the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 15% on the amount received by the OPs and further the complainant is entitled to adequate compensation for mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs besides the costs of litigation.
7.         The learned counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred. The possession was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 17.5.2010, as such, the complaint filed beyond the period of two years from the said date is barred by law of limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further argued that the complainant is claiming interest till the completion certificate is granted, but, the OPs were exempted from obtaining the said certificate, as such, there is no question of interest as well as penalty as claimed by the complainant.  It is also argued that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint as indirectly relief of possession has been sought by the complainant and taking into consideration the price of the plot, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted.  It is also argued that under clause 39 of the agreement all disputes are to be referred to the arbitrator appointed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction. It is also argued that all the amenities as per clause 23 of the agreement had been completed and internal roads, water, sewerage and electrical lines had been laid in the area where the plot is situated. As such, all the amenities were complete in 2010 when the possession was offered. The complainant never visited the spot. He further argued that there was no requirement for the OPs to obtain the completion certificate as it was exempted from the provisions of the PAPRA Act. It is further alleged that no occupation certificate was required as the same is applicable in the case of buildings and not plots. It is also argued that burden was on the complainant to prove that no basic amenities have been provided which the complainant has failed to prove. 
8.         It is not disputed that the OPs floated a scheme for the allotment of plots in their project known as Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali.  Annexure C-1 is the application for registration of expression of interest by the complainant which proves that the complainant opted for a plot in the said project. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant was allotted a plot No.89 measuring 300 sq. yards in the project of the OPs at Central Park, Sector 105, Mohali. Annexure C-4 is the provisional allotment letter of the plot issued by the OPs to the complainant and the payment was made by the complainant as per the installment plan issued.  Annexure C-5 is the plot buyer’s agreement entered into between the parties.  Clause 8 of the agreement reads as under :-

“8.    Subject to Force Majeure conditions and reasons beyond the control of the Company, the Company shall endeavor to deliver possession of the Plot to the Allottee within a period of 2 (Two) years from the date of execution of this Agreement, but not later than 3 (Three) years.  In the event that the possession of the Plot is likely to be delayed for reason of any force majeure event or any other reason beyond the control of the Company including government strike or due to civil commotion or by reason of war or enemy action or earthquake or any act of God or if non delivery is as a result of any act, notice, order, rule or notification of the Govt. and any other public or Competent Authority or for any reason beyond the control of the Company, then in any of the aforesaid events, the Company shall upon notice claiming force majeure to the Allottee be entitled to such extension of time till the force majeure event persists or the reason beyond the control of the Company exists. In the event that the Company fails to deliver possession of the Plot without existence of any force majeure event or reason beyond the control of the Company within a maximum period of 3 (Three) years from the date of execution of this Agreement, the Company shall be liable to pay to the Allottee, a penalty of the sum of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sq. yds. per month for such period of delay beyond 3 (Three) years from the date of execution of this Agreement”

Thus, as per clause 8 of the agreement, the OPs were to deliver the possession within three years from the date of execution of this agreement which was executed on 20.6.2007. Annexure C-9 is the letter dated 17.5.2010 issued by the OPs for delivery of possession of the plot No.89 to the complainant. Zero amount was outstanding towards the plot account. Delayed interest to the tune of Rs.18,407/- was demanded and besides this additional external development charges amounting to Rs.3,42,156/- were demanded and the OPs asked the complainant to take the possession. Annexure C-10 is another letter dated 16.12.2011 again offering the possession.

9.         The first question which requires consideration is as to whether in the face of arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle dispute between the parties through arbitration in terms of the provision of section 8 of the (amended) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not? It has been held in a number of judgments that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is an additional remedy to the remedy before the arbitrator. The Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, Consumer Complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, has elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 and Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha’s case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. The Hon’ble National Commission recently in a case Lt. Col. Anil Raj & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 2.5.2016 observed as under :-

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

Thus, taking into consideration the well settled law that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is not barred because of existence of arbitration agreement between the parties, we have no hesitation to hold that the jurisdiction of this forum is not ousted because of the arbitration clause. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the OPs on this point is devoid of merit.

10.         In the present case, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is not ousted because the complainant has not sought the relief of possession from the OPs. The complainant has approached this Forum in view of clause 8 of the agreement by virtue of which the OPs have to pay the penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month till the possession is delivered. Had the complainant sought the relief of possession, then the sale price of the plot could be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, but, since no such relief has been sought, as such the argument of the learned counsel for the OPs that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction is devoid of merit. 
11.         The complainant has specifically pleaded that he wanted to purchase one plot for his residential purposes. So, on the assurance given by the OPs, he has applied for the allotment of the plot. There is no evidence on the record that the complainant had purchased the plot for any other purpose except residential. In case Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.2.2015, by the Hon’ble National Commission, it was held that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon’ble National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi Gupta, Revision Petition No.3861 of 2014, decided on 26.8.2015. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. So it is proved that the plot was purchased by the complainant for his residential purposes and not for commercial purpose. 
12.         The most important question which requires determination in this case is as to whether the OPs offered the physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant complete in all respects or not?  Annexure C-5 is a copy of the buyer’s agreement which was entered into between the parties and as per clause 8 of the said agreement, OPs were to deliver possession within a period of two years, but, not later than three years except in case of force majeure event or reasons beyond the control of the company.  In the present case the OPs have failed to plead or prove that they were prevented by the force majeure event to complete the project.  On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the project is complete in all respects on the date the letter of offer of possession was delivered.  It is the case of the complainant that after receiving the letter offering the possession, he visited the spot and found that the project was not complete.  There was no such progress on the spot as was projected by the OPs in their letters.  The OPs have failed to produce cogent evidence to prove the completion of their project. Even the OPs could request the Forum to send some local commissioner to falsify the stand taken by the complainant about the completion of the project, but, no such step was taken by the OPs.  Annexure C-9 is the first letter dated 17.5.2010 written to the complainant offering the possession, the operative part of the same reads as under :-

“The development activities in all three sectors of Mohali Hills i.e. Sector 105, 108 and 109 are in full swing and we are pleased to inform you that significant progress has been made with respect to development of basic infrastructure like water pipelines, sewer pipelines and development of roads, parks in these sectors.  The development work of road and other basic infrastructure has been completed in portions of Central Park Sector 105, Mohali Hills, where your plot is situated. Further, you may note temporary electricity and water connection has already been sanctioned for the Project”

This letter itself proves that when the offer was given to the complainant to take the possession, at that time the development activities of the project in Sector 105 were not complete, but, were going on. Annexure C-10 is another letter dated 16.12.2011, the operative portion of the same reads as under :-

                “We have already initiated community development works like parks, Golf Course, roads, electrical lighting and setting up to STP (Sewage Treatment Plant), Rain water harvesting system and the electrical sub stations.

                Upon completion of the above and receipt of Completion Certificate from GMADA, we shall commence the process of the execution and registration of sale deeds and shall keep you updated on further developments in relation.”

This letter also proves that the development works like parks, golf course, roads, electrical lighting and setting up to STP (Sewage Treatment Plant), Rain water harvesting system and the electrical sub stations were not complete and only steps were taken for the completion. Thus, it is proved that when both the letters offering the possession were written to the complainant, at that time the project was not complete; all the amenities which were required to be provided were not provided, infrastructure was also not complete.   So, the complainant was not supposed to accept the possession of the plot in an incomplete project.  Had the complainant taken the possession, then the OPs must have not provided him all the amenities which were required to be provided and he would have been left with no remedy except to knock the doors of the civil court which would have caused a great hardship to the complainant.  So, like a prudent man, the complainant did not accept the possession of an incomplete project.

13.         Annexure C-27 is the information sent to the complainant under the RTI Act which reads as under :-

Sr.No.	Information sought	Reply
20.	Copy of sewerage treatment plant commissioning certificate awarded to Emmar MGF Land Limited for its various projects at Mohali.	Not applied to GMADA by the promoter so far.
21.	Copy of Water Supply Commissioning certificate awarded to Emmar MGF Land Limited for its various projects at Mohali	Not applied to GMADA by the promoter so far.
22.	Copy of electric supply commissioning certificate awarded to Emmar MGF Land Limited for its various projects at Mohali.	Not applied to GMADA by the promoter so far.
23.	Copy of Electric Grid Station Commissioning Certificate awarded to Emmar MGF Land Limited for its various projects at Mohali.	Not applied to GMADA by the promoter so far.
24.	Copy of Electric load sanction certificate awarded to Emmar MGF Land Limited for its various projects at Mohali	To be supplied by PSPCL.
25.	Copy of used Electricity load by Emmar MGF Land Limited for its various projects at Mohali.	To be supplied by PSPCL”

 

Annexure C-34 dated 13.2.2012 is the approval of the revised lay out plan which itself proves that the OPs have sought the approval of the revised lay out plan which was sanctioned on 13.2.2013.  As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the OPs to get it argued that the project was complete for delivering the possession in the year 2010.  Annexure C-40, which is copy of the information received under the RTI Act, clearly proves that till 26.9.2014 no completion certificate was applied by the OPs with regard to the project consisting in Sectors 98, 99, 104, 105 and 106. Thus, it is proved that the project was not complete and the OPs were not in a position to offer the possession with all the amenities to the complainant and in order to avoid their liability of penalty they have written letters Annexure C-9 and C-10 asking the complainant to take the possession. This conduct of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service. 

14.         The argument of the learned counsel for the OPs that the burden was on the complainant to prove that the amenities have not been provided is devoid of merit because before offering the possession it was the duty of the OPs to prove that all the amenities as per the agreement are ready in all respects.  However, as discussed above, the OPs have failed to prove that the project is complete and even fit for delivery of possession.
15.         The learned counsel for the OPs argued that no completion certificate was required, but, this argument is devoid of merit.  Their own letter Annexure C-10 proves that the OPs had applied for completion certificate and they have assured that after receipt of completion certificate from the GMADA, they shall commence the process of execution and registration of the sale deed and shall keep the complainant updated.  No doubt the learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the notification (Annexure OP/2) vide which exemption was granted to the OPs from all the provisions of the PAPRA Act except Section 32, but, that exemption was not in toto and was subject to certain conditions  mentioned in the notification.  OPs have failed to produce the documents to show that they have complied with all the requirements mentioned in the notification. The OPs cannot escape their liability of completion of the project and obtaining the completion certificate from the GMADA. Thus, it is proved that in fact no possession was offered to the complainant and the letters issued by the OPs offering the possession were just a paper transaction and the OPs were not in a positon to deliver the actual possession to the complainant and that is why the complainant has rightly refused the possession.
16.         In the present case, the complainant has not claimed the refund of the amount, but, has sought the interest on the amount deposited @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the issuance of the completion certificate.  Had the complainant sought the refund of the amount, in that situation he was entitled to the interest on the amount deposited, but, since no refund has been sought, so the complainant is not entitled to interest on the deposited amount particularly in view of clause 8 of the agreement which also provides for a penalty clause in case of non-delivery of possession.  Hence, in view of clause 8, since the possession has not been delivered to the complainant, he is entitled to recover Rs.50/- per sq. yards per month from June 2010 till the issuance of the completion certificate by the competent authority i.e. GMADA.
17.         The learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment in the case Mrs. Rajul Kothari & another Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Private Ltd. & another, Complaint case No.88 of 2014 decided on 16.10.2014 by our own Hon’ble State Commission on the point of limitation, but, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the present case no actual possession was offered to the complainant and offer was only a paper transaction.  Similarly, the judgment in case S.C. Jain Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Revision Petition No.789 of 2012 decided on 21.11.2012 by the Hon’ble National Commission is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment in case Umesh Saini Vs. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority Office, Revision Petition No.3004 of 2010 decided on 20.1.2011 by the Hon’ble National Commission is also not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the complainant had herself refused to accept the possession.
18.         The next question which requires consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him. 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 them (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 complainant(s). 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 complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment at the hands of the OPs, for a number of years, as they failed to deliver physical possession of unit to him, complete in all respects.  Complainant purchased the plot for the residential purposes, with the hope to have a roof over his head, by raising construction thereon, but his hopes were dashed to the ground and now the complainant has to spend much more amount on the construction of the plot as prices have increased. So, we are of the opinion that in the present case the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
19.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

(i)     To pay to the complainant penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yards per month from 21.6.2010 (as per clause 8 of the plot buyer’s agreement) till the issuance of the completion certificate by the competent authority i.e. GMADA;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 

20.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
21.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/09/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	President