Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/242/2015

Mr. Manjeet Singh Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rakesh Sharma

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/242/2015
Date of Institution	:	20/04/2015
Date of Decision	:	27/11/2015

 

 

1.      Mr. Manjeet Singh Dhillon s/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh Dhillon;

2.      Mrs. Jyoti Dhillon w/o Mr. Manjeet Singh Dhillon,

          Both residents of Flat No.2147, Jal Vayu Vihar, Sector 67, Mohali-160062.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.      M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, ECE House, 28, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.

2.      Ms. Neha Sharma, AGM-Customer Service, M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Manjeet Singh Dhillon (husband) and Smt. Jyoti Dhillon (wife), complainants have filed 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), alleging that they were jointly allotted plot No.104-EP-149-250 measuring 250 sq. yards in Mohali Hills, Sector 104, Mohali for a basic sale price of Rs.45,00,000/- excluding of external development and infrastructure development charges vide allotment letter dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure C-1).  Besides that, the complainants were required to pay Rs.5,62,000/- as preferential location charges.

                According to the complainants, they paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through four cheques dated 2.11.2010 vide receipts Annexure C-2 (Colly.) and another payment of Rs.4,00,000/- was made vide cheque dated 10.12.2010. The complainants deposited the amount of Rs.9,56,250/- vide receipt dated 8.2.2011 (Annexure C-5). Subsequently, the complainants intimated the OPs to execute the buyer’s agreement and in response the OPs assured to finalise and expedite the signing of buyer’s agreement through their letters dated 30.4.2011 and 10.5.2011, but, the OPs failed to do the same and instead asked the complainants to deposit the installment of Rs.9,56,250/-, which was paid by them vide cheque dated 10.5.2011. The complainants have averred that they had deposited more than Rs.28.00 lakhs during the period 2.11.2010 to 10.5.2011 on false assurances of signing of buyer’s agreement by the OPs.  The OPs finally sent letter dated 31.10.2011 to sign the buyer’s agreement which was signed by the complainants on 1.11.2011 after an extra ordinary delay of one year.  Thereafter in pursuance to the demand of the OPs, the complainants paid the amounts of Rs.18,02,750/- and Rs.4,50,000/- which were acknowledged on 4.2.2012. The complainants have contended that there was no delay on their part in depositing the installments and as per the buyer’s agreement dated 1.11.2011, the OPs were required to pay Rs.50 per sq. yard per month as penalty for delay in handing over the possession to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/-. The complainants requested the OPs to confirm compensation amount on account of delay in handing over the plot through various emails and in response the OPs sent an email dated 22.10.2014 asking them to submit indemnity bond, which was got signed from them on 29.10.2014 under pressure of further delay in handing over and inducement that it was a mere formality. When the OPs failed to convey and adjust the compensation amount payable to the complainants, they took up the issue with them vide email dated 17.3.2015. The OPs vide email dated 18.3.2015 refused to pay the compensation amount without offsetting the same against delayed interest charges and informed that the balance amount of compensation had already been paid in the complainants account. As per the statement issued alongwith the email, an amount of Rs.67,487/- had only been shown credited on 20.11.2014 against the total delayed compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-.  The complainants have alleged that the delay was caused by the OPs in signing the buyer’s agreement deliberately to avoid payment of compensation on account of delay in handing over the possession of the plot and the same constitutes deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint. 

2.         In their joint written statement, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction; that the plot in question was purchased by the complainants merely for speculation; that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The factual matrix of the case has not been disputed. It has been admitted that the plot in question was provisionally allotted to the complainants. It has been pleaded that all demands were raised according to the schedule agreed upon and the complainants were requested to remit the installments accordingly.  It has been averred that the complainants, who were availing loan, had not provided the loan sanction letter to the OPs and it was assured that for any delay on the part of the OPs penal action would not be taken against the complainants. It has been contended that the buyer’s agreement was sent to the complainants on 31.10.2011 and was executed on 1.11.2011.  It has been stated that the OPs had submitted all the relevant documents to HDFC, but, some additional documents were requested by the financial institution which were also provided in due course.  It has been averred that the OPs were supposed to hand over possession of the unit within 18 months from the date of execution of the buyer’s agreement and in case of any delay, the company was liable to pay compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month beyond the period of 18 months until possession had been offered. It has been pleaded that the OPs issued the intimation of possession letter to the complainants on 14.10.2014 and compensation, if any, would have to be calculated till that date and not March 2015. It has been contended that the complainants had signed the indemnity dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure C-19) wherein they had accepted their default in payment of installments and as per indemnity they cannot claim delayed compensation. The compensation, if any payable, has to be adjusted against the waivers granted by the company in terms of the indemnity.  The possession of the plot in question was offered vide letter dated 14.10.2014, however, the physical possession was taken by the complainants only on 2.3.2015, therefore, they are also liable to pay holding charges to the OPs. It has been contended that the indemnity was duly signed and submitted by the complainants and now they cannot wriggle out of the agreed terms and conditions.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In their rejoinder, the complainants have controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated their own.  It has been pleaded that the OPs did not raise any demand or levy any holding charges even at the time of handing over possession of plot on 2.3.2015.  It has been further pleaded that the complainants were induced to sign the pre vetted indemnity bond as per company policy. It has been denied that there was any delay on the part of the complainants in taking over the possession.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have scanned the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         Admittedly, the complainants were allotted plot No.104-EP-149-250 measuring 250 sq. yards in Mohali Hills, Sector 104, Mohali for a basic sale price of Rs.45.00 lakhs excluding of external development and infrastructure development charges vide allotment letter dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure C-1).  The complainants were required to pay Rs.5,62,000/- as preferential location charges.  An amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid through four cheques dated 2.11.2010 vide receipts Annexure C-2 (Colly.). A payment of Rs.4.00 lakhs was made vide cheque dated 10.12.2010 duly acknowledged vide acknowledgment (Annexure C-3).  An amount of Rs.9,56,250/- was deposited vide receipt dated 8.2.2011 (Annexure C-5). Further an amount of Rs.9,56,250/- was paid vide cheque No.88232 on 10.5.2011. An amount of Rs.18,62,750/- was paid and acknowledged by the OPs on 25.1.2012 and Rs.4,50,000/- was acknowledged on 4.2.2012 [Annexure C-15 (Colly.)]. According to the complainants, the buyer’s agreement was got signed by the OPs from them on 1.11.2011 after an extraordinary delay of one year with the sole purpose to avoid  commitment of payment of compensation on account of delay in handing over possession beyond 18 months from the date of signing of buyer’s agreement. According to the complainants, the plot was finally handed over to them on 2.3.2015 and there is a delay of 34 months entitling them to a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rs.12,500/- per month x 34 months).  The OPs as per statement issued alongwith email dated 18.3.2015 have credited an amount of Rs.67,487/- on 20.11.2014 in the account of the complainants against the total delayed compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-. Hence, the main grievance of the complainants is regarding the payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,57,513/- alongwith interest. 
7.         The first objection raised by the OPs in their written reply is that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.  It has been urged by the learned counsel for the OPs that the relief claimed in the prayer clause by the complainants alongwith interest exceeds beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, which is Rs.20.00 lakhs, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 
8.         It is pertinent to note that the complainants have claimed the following reliefs :-

(i)     Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses

(ii)    Rs.3,57,513/- on account of compensation payable due to delay in handing over of the possession.

(iii)   18% interest per annum on the amount of the above compensation amount.

(iv)   Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of increase in the cost of construction/building material.

(v)    Compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs on account of harassment, mental agony and undue hardship on account of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

It is evident that the amount claimed by the complainants in respect of compensation and litigation expenses is Rs.19,07,513/-. So far as interest claimed by the complainants @ 18% per annum is concerned, it cannot be considered for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum because it is for the Forum to grant any interest or not. Consequently, we feel that the present complaint is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. 

9.         The next contention of the OPs is that the complainants are residents of Mohali and they are already having their own house at Mohali and the plot in question was purchased merely for speculation, therefore, the complainants do not fall under the definition of consumers as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  However, this contention is also devoid of any force because the OPs have not produced any documentary proof to this effect that the complainants own any house in Mohali or anywhere in India. The complainants have specifically denied in their rejoinder, which is supported by an affidavit, that they own any house in Mohali or anywhere in India.  They have also denied in the affidavit that the plot in question was purchased by them for speculation.  On the other hand, the complainants have pleaded that they had purchased this plot for their own use.  Consequently, when the complainants hired the services of the OPs and paid the amount towards the charges of plot in question for their own use, they are covered well within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10.         The next objection raised by the OPs is to the effect that as per clause 39 of the agreement all disputes are to be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  It has been contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainants should be relegated to the remedy of arbitration as provided for in clause 39 of the agreement. However, we are not impressed with the above contention of the learned counsel for the OPs because the remedy provided to the consumers under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, therefore, it is immaterial if the complainants instead of getting the dispute referred to the arbitrator have filed the present complaint.
11.         Now we advert to the most vital question relating to payment of compensation on account of delay in handing over of possession of the plot to the complainants.  It has been urged by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainants have accepted their default in payment of installments vide indemnity dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure
    C-19), therefore, they cannot claim any compensation for delay in handing over of the possession. He has further argued that the compensation, if any, payable has to be adjusted against waivers granted by the OPs in terms of the indemnity. He has contended that the possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainants vide letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure C-16), but, the physical possession was taken by the complainants on 2.3.2015 vide certificate (Annexure R-1), therefore, the complainants are also liable to pay holding charges to the OPs in terms of clause 9 of the buyer’s agreement for the period of delay in taking possession of the plot. The learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainants were required to make the payments in accordance with the payment schedule opted by and agreed upon by them. He has argued that the finalization of the buyer’s agreement took time and could not be executed till 1.11.2011, but, the demands of installments were raised as per the agreed payment schedule. He has argued that the submissions of the complainants as to deliberately delaying the buyer’s agreement resulting in loss to them are wrong because all the demands were raised according to the schedule agreed upon.  He has also argued that the OPs had all the requisite permissions, but, some additional documents were required by HDFC Bank from whom the complainants had obtained the loan.  However, those additional documents were also provided in due course by the OPs.  He has further argued that since the payments of Rs.18.02 lakhs and Rs.4.50 lakhs were received late, the complainants were required to pay delayed payment charges.  The delayed payment charges waiver was offered by the OPs to the complainants and it was mentioned therein that the amount of waiver would be adjusted against the total compensation payable by the OPs.  The learned counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the indemnity (Annexure R-3) was duly signed and submitted by the complainants and now they cannot wriggle out of the agreed terms and conditions. He has submitted that the reminders for the delayed payments were sent to the complainants vide Annexure R-4 (Colly.). The learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the delayed interest was levied since the installments were not remitted on due dates. However, the complainants submitted the indemnity for incorporating delayed payment charges waiver out of their own free will without any coercion from the OPs and now the complainants cannot claim otherwise.  The learned counsel for the OPs has also argued that the company issued the intimation of possession letter to the complainants on 14.10.2014 and compensation, if any, would have to be calculated till that date and not upto March 2015, as claimed by the complainants. The learned counsel for the OPs has further submitted that the amount of compensation was finalized after submission of indemnity and adjustment of delayed payment charges for the same and as per account statement (Annexure R-2) a credit of Rs.67,487/- was given towards compensation for delayed payment to the complainants on 20.11.2014. The learned counsel for the OPs has strenuously argued that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
12.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that though the plot in question was allotted to the complainants on 29.11.2010, yet, the buyer’s agreement (Annexure C-11) was got signed from the complainants only on 1.11.2011. The complainants have specifically pleaded in the complaint that they intimated the OPs in writing on a number of occasions to execute the buyer’s agreement and the OPs assured through their letters dated 30.4.2011 and 10.5.2011 [Annexure C-6 (Colly.)] to extend the date of installments and advised the complainants to submit sanction letter issued by the financial institution. The copy of letter dated 10.5.2011 [Annexure C-6 (Colly.)] shows that the OPs specifically intimated complainant No.1 that they were expediting the process of finalization of buyer’s agreement and shall keep him updated on the status and in case of any procedural delays at their end, there would be no penalty levied on the property allotted in their favour. The OPs again vide letter dated 28.6.2011 (Annexure C-7) informed complainant No.1 that in case of any procedural delays at their end, there would be no penalty levied on the property allotted in their favour.  The complainants have specifically pleaded in para 7 of the complaint that they informed the OPs vide their letters dated 20.6.2011 and 21.7.2011 [Annexure C-9 (Colly.)] that HDFC Bank can only release further installments after signing of buyer’s agreement and also requested them to extend the payment schedule.  It is significant to note that vide letter dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure C-10) the OPs again informed the complainants that they were expediting the process of finalization of the buyer’s agreement and further informed that since they had applied for the bank loan for making the payment, they would be required to clear all the dues against the unit within 20 days of the despatch of the buyer’s agreement.  The copy of the letter dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure C-11) shows that the buyer’s agreement was sent to complainant No.1 for signature only on 31.10.2011 which was signed on 1.11.2011. The copy of email dated 5.1.2012 [Annexure
    C-12 (Colly.)] sent by the OPs to the complainants shows that all the requisite documents had been submitted to the Bank (HDFC Bank). Further, they had asked for some additional documents which would be submitted within a week. Thus, it is obvious that the delay in making the payment of a few installments by the complainants was on account of delay by the OPs in finalizing the buyer’s agreement and submitting the additional documents to the HDFC Bank to enable them to release the payment. A perusal of the letter dated 23.1.2012 (Annexure C-14) shows that the complainants were asked to pay the amount of Rs.22,52,750/- within 30 days and the company was agreeable to negotiate interest and/or any penalty payable by them due to delay in depositing the amount. Thereafter an amount of Rs.18,02,750/- was deposited by the complainants vide cheque dated 25.1.2012 [Annexure C-15 (Colly.)] and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid vide acknowledgement dated 4.2.2012 because it fell due on that date.  The OPs as per their own assurance should not have levied any penalty for delayed payment. The email message dated 29.1.2015 (Annexure C-20) also shows that the OPs forwarded the case of the complainants for delayed payment charges waiver without indemnity. A narration of the above facts clearly goes to show that the delay, if any, in payment of a few installments was on account of the delay in sending of draft of buyer’s agreement to the complainants for signature and also on account of delayed submission of additional documents to the HDFC Bank by the OPs.  In this view of the matter, the OPs ought not to have charged any penalty for delayed payment. There was no question of taking any undertaking cum indemnity (Annexure C-19) from the complainants. The complainants have rightly contended in their rejoinder that they were made to sign indemnity bond on false promise and inducement to process delayed penalty. In Swarn Talwar etc. Vs. Unitech Ltd., Consumer Case No.347 of 2014 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 14.8.2015 it was held that a term of contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary, but, was given under a sort of compulsion on account of the person giving consent being left with no other choice or if the said term amounts to unfair trade practice. In the instant case also, the complainants were left with no other choice except to affix their signatures on the indemnity cum undertaking. Otherwise also, obtaining the signatures of the complainants on indemnity also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The fact that later on vide statement of account (Annexure R-2) the OPs waived the delayed payment charges also points out that the levy of delayed payment charges was totally unjustified.
13.         So far as the question of amount of compensation payable by the OPs to the complainants is concerned, it has been contended by the complainants that the buyer’s agreement should have been signed in the month of November 2010 and if the period of 18 months is calculated from November 2010, OPs were required to hand over the possession on or before 30.4.2012, but, the plot was finally handed over to the complainants on 2.3.2015. It has been urged by the complainants that there is a delay of 34 months entitling them to a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rs.12,500/- per month x 34 months).
14.         A perusal of the condition No.18 & 19 of the application for provisional allotment of plot [Annexure C-1 (Colly.)] shows that “the Company shall make all efforts to handover possession of the Plot within a period of 12 months from the date of the execution of the Buyer’s Agreement, subject to certain limitations as may be provided in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement ……….…… the company shall be entitled to a grace period of 6 months, for applying and obtaining the necessary permission/approvals in respect of the Plot and/or the Project…………….. In the event the Company fails to deliver the possession of the Plot to the Applicant within the stipulated time period and as per the terms and conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement, then the Company shall pay, to the applicant, compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) per sq. yd. of the Plot area per month for the period of default……….”

                Condition No.8 of the buyer’s agreement dated 1.11.2011 [Annexure C-11 (Colly.)] reads as under :-

“8.    Subject to force majeure conditions and reasons beyond the control of the Company, the Company shall make every endeavor to deliver possession of the Plot to the Allotee (s) within a period of 12 (twelve) months from the date of execution of this Buyer’s Agreement.  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 Government 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(s) 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 18 (eighteen) months from the date of execution of this Agreement, the Company shall be liable to pay to the Allottee(s), a penalty of the sum of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sq. yard per month for such period of delay beyond 18 months from the date of execution of this Agreement.  It is made clear to the Allottee(s) and understood by the Allottee(s) that under no circumstances the Possession of the Plot will be handed over to the Allottee(s) prior to the execution of the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed.”

A joint reading of the terms and conditions signed alongwith the application letter (Annexure C-1) and Buyer’s Agreement make it clear that the OPs were bound to give possession of the plot within a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the buyer’s agreement and they were liable to pay to the allottee a penalty of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month for the delay beyond 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement.  Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the OPs were supposed to hand over the possession of the plot within 18 months from the date of execution of the buyer’s agreement, therefore, the delay is to be counted from 30.4.2013. The contention of the OPs that they issued the intimation of possession letter to the complainants on 14.10.2014 and the compensation, if any, would have to be calculated till that date is not tenable. A perusal of the letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure C-16) relating to intimation of possession itself shows that the OPs intimated that the process of handing over the plots in Sector 104, Mohali Hills shall commence within 60 days of that letter. It means the plot of the complainants was not ready for possession on 14.10.2014. The complainants had all along been requesting the OPs to make payment of compensation for delayed possession. The OPs intimated the complainants vide email dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure C-18) that the adjustment of compensation in their account as per the terms of buyer’s agreement was being taken up and an update on the same shall be shared with them once a confirmation is received at their end.  The complainants sent a letter vide email dated 8.12.2014 (Annexure C-21) whereby the OPs were again requested to re-work the payment schedule in the light of para 19 of the buyer’s agreement wherein they were eligible for compensation from the OPs on account of delay in handing over possession on their part.  The OPs vide email dated 8.12.2014 (page 108 of the paper book) informed the complainants that their case was under consideration; however, a decision on the same was still awaited. Complainant No.1 vide email dated 25.1.2015 (page 110 of the paper book) again stated that he was entitled to compensation as per the buyer’s agreement @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month for the period starting from April 2012 till date for about 33 months which worked out to around Rs.4,12,500/- and that amount had not yet been adjusted.  Again vide letter dated 2.2.2015 (Annexure C-23), complainant No.1 asked the OPs to expedite the compensation case and to hand over the possession of the plot at the earliest. However, it was only on 5.3.2015 (Annexure C-24) that the OPs intimated the complainants that it would not be possible for them to consider the compensation for the said amount and for the remaining compensation amount they would be sharing an updated copy of the statement of account shortly. Later on, the OPs in their statement of account (Annexure R-2) have mentioned that compensation to the tune of Rs.67,487/- was credited in the account of the complainants on 20.11.2014. The fact that the OPs credited compensation of Rs.67,487/- in the account of the complainants clearly goes to show that the complainants were entitled to compensation.  The plea of the OPs that the compensation, if any, payable had to be adjusted against the waivers granted by the OPs in terms of the indemnity cannot be accepted. We are of the view that the payment of compensation was deliberately delayed by the OPs to the complainants and possession of the plot was actually handed over vide possession certificate dated 2.3.2015 (Annexure R-1). Accordingly, the complainants are clearly entitled to the compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month for the period starting from 1.5.2013 till 1.3.2015. The payment of a compensation of Rs.67,487/- only by credit on 20.11.2014 clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainants are entitled to the balance amount of compensation from the OPs. We are of the opinion that the complainants were harassed on account of the conduct of the OPs firstly on account of the delay in waiver of the levy of delayed payment charges and secondly by not making the full payment of the compensation on account of the default in handing over of the possession beyond 30.4.2013. There is no question of paying holding charges to the OPs because the OPs never demanded any holding charges from the complainants by sending even a single letter to the complainants. Further, the delay in calculating the compensation was on the part of the OPs, therefore, the possession could not be taken by the complainants. Hence, the contention of the OPs for payment of holding charges, at this stage, is irrational. 

15.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. The OPs are directed:-

(i)     To make payment of compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month to the complainants w.e.f. 1.5.2013 to 1.3.2015 (after adjusting the amount of Rs.67,487/-) with interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

(ii)    To also make payment of compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainants for harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

(iii)   To also pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses. 

16.         This order be complied with by 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 present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
17.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
27.11.2015		[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg		Member	President