Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/40/2015

Parminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

I.P.Singh & Dipinder Singh, Adv.

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH
 

1. Parminder Singh S/o Shri Harbans Singh, resident of S-326, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi – 110048.
2. Gundeep Singh S/o Shri Parminder Singh, resident of S-326, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi – 110048.

……Complainants.

Versus

Ms. Emaar MGF Land Limited earlier known as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Private Limited having its registered office at MGF House, 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002 and also having its office at SCO No.120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its Managing Director/Directors.

              ....Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh.  I. P. Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              The facts, in brief, are that on being represented by the Opposite Party, the complainants were allured to purchase a Plot and, accordingly, they applied for a plot of 400 sq. yards in the year 2006 and deposited Rs.14,80,000/- on 23.9.2006 vide receipt (Annexure C-1) as the initial amount. It was stated that Plot No.125 measuring 400 sq. yards in Central Greens, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, SAS Nagar, Mohali was allotted by the Opposite Party vide provisional allotment letter dated 09.04.2007 (Annexure C-3) @Rs.11,500/- per sq. yard at a total sale price of Rs.54,43,192/- including preferential location charges of Rs.5,75,000/- as the complainants opted for preferential i.e. park facing plot and external development charges of Rs.2,68,192/-. It was further stated that the complainants paid another sum of Rs.2,30,000/- vide receipt dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the plot was to be handed over within a period of two years from the date of execution thereof, failing which, the Opposite Party was to pay Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month as penalty for the delayed period.

2.         It was further stated that there was no progress in the project, due to which, the installments were withheld by the complainants for a short time. It was further stated that despite that the complainants deposited the due installments, even by paying delayed period interest from time to time. It was further stated that the Opposite Party illegally and arbitrarily, in the absence of any development at the site, kept on raising demands vide letters dated 17.8.2007 and 30.8.2007 (Annexure C-7 & C-8 respectively). It was further stated that a total sum of Rs.56,46,983/- was deposited by the complainants with the Opposite Party vide receipts (Annexure C-9 to C-17). It was further stated that the Opposite Party misrepresented to the complainants regarding the sale of plot, in question. It was further stated that the complainants made more than 20 visits to the Chandigarh office of the Opposite Party but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Party tried to wriggle out of the Agreement, by offering another plot No.237 vide letter dated 06.08.2013 (Annexure C-18), to which, the complainants did not agree as per letter dated 07.01.2014 (Annexure C-19) sent to it. It was further stated that again possession of plot No.237 was offered vide letter 11.4.2014 (Annexure C-20) and the Opposite Party raised demand regarding balance payment vide letters dated 1.8.2014 and 15.10.2014 (Annexures C-21 and C-22 respectively).

3.         It was further stated that the Opposite Party vide letter dated 16.10.2014 asked the complainants to submit indemnity for the delayed payment charges waiver additional discount etc. and copy of the amended Agreement for the proposed plot No.237 (Annexure C-23 colly.). It was further stated that vide letter dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure C-24), again demand of Rs.11,35,178.23 was raised by the Opposite Party, for the alternative plot, for which, the complainants never gave any written consent. It was further stated that with reference to letter dated 7.11.2014 (Annexure C-25) of the complainants, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure C-26) again insisted for the other plot. It was further stated that the complainants visited the plot on 1.12.2014 and insisted for possession of plot No.125, allotted to them but the Opposite Party showed its inability to hand over the same. It was further stated that the complainants asked the Opposite Party to refund the total sale consideration vide letter dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure C-27) but it vide email dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure C-28) informed that the matter was being looked into and decision within a week would be conveyed. It was further stated that the complainants were shocked to receive letter dated 03.02.2015 (Annexure C-29), whereby, the Opposite Party informed that in case the amount of Rs.11,35,178.23 was not paid within a period of 30 days, the Agreement dated 11.7.2007 would be terminated.

4.         It was further stated that the Opposite Party could not force the complainants to have some other plot and that too at a higher price than the agreed rate by issuing illegal and threatening notice. It was further stated that the Opposite Party also failed to convey any decision on the representation dated 16.12.2014 of the complainants as promised vide letter dated 9.1.2015. It was further stated the complainants had booked a plot with the hope that they would be getting possession of the same within a period of two/three years i.e. by 10.07.2010. It was further stated that the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period and, as such, they were liable to pay penalty as per Clause 8 of the Agreement. It was further stated that due to non-handing over of possession within the stipulated period, the Opposite Party was liable to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month towards rental income w.e.f. 1.2.2010 till the date the amount came to be Rs.18,00,000/-. 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.

5.         When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.55,43,192/- alongwith interest @15% per annum from the date of deposit till payment; pay Rs.10,80,000/- towards delayed period; Rs.18,00,000/- towards loss of rent for delay in possession; Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony; and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

6.         The Opposite Party, was served and put in appearance on 13.04.2015. It filed its written statement on 19.05.2015. In the written statement, the Opposite Party, took-up certain preliminary objections, to the effect that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as the complainants were duly offered possession of the plot and it were they who themselves backtracked, after accepting the alternate plot (105-CP-237-386) and refused to take possession of the plot, in question, and did not pay the due charges; that the complainants were not consumers and rather speculators, who purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purposes and earning profits by letting out the same on rent; that this Commission was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the existence of Arbitration clause No.39 in the Agreement; that allegations of fraud and cheating were levelled in the complaint, which could not be gone into in summary proceedings, before this Commission, for which the complainants be relegated to Civil Courts/arbitration to seek their remedy; that this Commission was having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainants applied for allotment of plot at Delhi, executed buyer’s agreement at Delhi, amount was also payable at Delhi and perusal of provisional allotment letter and another letter dated 15.04.2007 (Annexure C-4) revealed that documents/cheques were submitted/issued from Delhi office of the Company.

7.         On merits, it was stated that the complainants had themselves admitted that they lost rental income, which they would have earned, if they had raised construction on the plot and given it on rent and, as such, the purchase of plot was purely for commercial purpose. It was admitted that the Opposite Party launched its project in the year 2006 and invited applications from the prospective customers, who were interested in purchasing a unit in the project. It was further stated that the complainants submitted an application form towards booking a 400 sq. yards plot and unit No.105-CG-125-400 was provisionally allotted to them vide letter dated 09.04.2007, total sale consideration whereof was Rs.54,43,192/-. It was denied that possession of the plot was to be handed over within two years. It was further stated that the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 11.7.2007 and as per Clause 8 thereof, possession was to be handed over within three years from the date of signing the said Agreement and on account of delay in handing over the same, compensation @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month was agreed to be paid by the Opposite Party to the complainants. It was further stated that in cases of sale of immovable property and construction, time was never regarded as the essence of contract.

8.         It was denied that the complainants were misled about the development at the site. It was further stated that the complainants, on their own, stopped the payment of installments and later on they made the payment. It was further stated that the installments were demanded by the Opposite Party as per the payment schedule shared with the complainants and payments were to be made as per the demands raised. It was further stated that the complainants only placed, on record, receipts of an amount of Rs.26,19,982/-, whereas they sought refund of Rs.55,43,192/-. It was further stated that the complainants who had earlier paid delayed payment charges, had already been refunded a sum of Rs.1,03,791/- vide letter dated 03.02.2012 against waiver of delayed payment interest (Annexure R-2 colly.).  Copy of the statement of account as on 28.10.2013 with respect to original unit No.105-CG-125-400 was annexed as Annexure R-3, whereas the statement of account dated 28.04.2015 with respect to the present unit No.105-CP-237-386 was annexed as Annexure R-4.

9.         It was further stated that since the possession of unit No.105-CG-125-400 was being delayed, the Opposite Party gave the option of relocation to the complainants wherein early possession could have been facilitated, which was accepted by the complainants vide letter/email dated 06.08.2013 (Annexure C-18) and unit/plot, in question, was changed to 105-CP-237-386. It was further stated that subsequently, possession of the relocated plot was offered to the complainants vide letter dated 11.4.2014 (Annexure C-20) and the Opposite Party demanded the amounts, which were required to be paid for getting the plot registered. It was further stated that since the payments were not received, the Opposite Party was constrained to send reminders and notices dated 1.8.2014 and 15.10.2014 and also agreed to waive of the delayed payment charges and provide additional discount. It was further stated that the allegation of the complainants that they did not consent to relocation was wrong and baseless. It was further stated that the complainants were again informed and their concerns dispelled vide email dated 8.8.2013 (Annexure R-5). It was further stated that the complainants were also informed that the changed location of the plot had been incorporated in the systems of the Opposite Party and they were asked to sign the amendment Agreement for necessary action on the part of the Opposite Party. Copy of the letter dated 29.1.2014 (wrongly mentioned as 29.1.2013) addressed to the complainants was annexed as Annexure R-6.

10.       It was further stated that once the complainants agreed and gave in writing that they had accepted the relocated plot, it did not lie in their mouth to turn round and again start claiming the earlier plot. It was further stated that notice dated 3.2.2015 was issued since the complainants failed to remit the complete over dues demanded vide letter dated 11.4.2014.  It was further stated that it was very strange that after getting offer of possession, the complainants had started demanding refund of money, which was not permissible. It was further stated that in case of seeking refund, it would entail cancellation of the Agreement and forfeiture and the complainants would be bound to lose the money as per the terms and conditions of the Plot 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.

11.       The complainants, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Parminder Singh, complainant No.1, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

12.       The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Sachin Kapoor, its Senior Manager (Legal), by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

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

14.       It is evident that the complainants, applied for a residential plot measuring 400 sq. yards, in the project of the Opposite Party in the year 2006 and Plot No.125 in Central Greens, Mohali Hills, Sector 105, SAS Nagar, Mohali was provisionally allotted to them vide allotment letter dated 09.04.2007 (Annexure C-3) and Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-6). As per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007, the possession was to be delivered to the complainants within a period of two years but not later than three years from the date of execution thereof.

15.       The objection of the Opposite Party that   the complainants are not consumers, as they purchased the property for commercial purpose, and earning profits out of it by giving the same on rent after construction is not on sound footing. It is not the case of the Opposite Party that the complainants booked/purchased more than one plot. Though the complainants have claimed relief on account of loss of rental value, yet it could not be said that they are not consumers. In our considered opinion, this will not oust the complainants from the definition of consumers. Had the Opposite Parties adduced some cogent evidence that the complainants already owned a house, the position would have been different and in that situation, it would have been accepted that the complainants are not the consumers. As such, this objection being devoid of merit is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

16.       The next objection, raised by the Opposite Party, is regarding the existence of arbitration clause No.39 in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-6). With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Act is made, which reads as under;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of an arbitration clause, in the document, aforesaid, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.  Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N.K.Modi (1996)6  SCC 385  and  C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. In this view of the matter, this objection of the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

17.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether this Commission has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The Opposite Party pleaded that since the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed at Delhi; the payments were also made at Delhi and the property, in question, is situated at Mohali (Punjab), this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Section 17(2) of the Act, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)  the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b)  any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)   the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

A perusal of the record shows that though the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure C-6) was executed between the parties at New Delhi, yet perusal of receipts (Annexures C-31 to C-37) issued by the Chandigarh Office of the Opposite Party, between the period 9.6.2008 to 26.02.2010, originals whereof were placed, on record, by the Counsel for the complainants during the course of arguments, show that the payments of 4^th, 5^th, 6^th & 7^th installments, Customer Installment and delayed interest were paid at the Chandigarh Office of the Opposite Parties i.e. SCO No.120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The complainants also corresponded with the Chandigarh office of the Opposite Party vide letters dated 7.11.2014 and 16.12.2014 (Annexures C-25 & C-27 respectively).  Thus, since a part of cause of action arose to the complainants at Chandigarh, this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

18.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to what amount the complainants deposited and whether they are entitled to refund of the same. The Opposite Party in Para 8 of its written statement have admitted that as per its record, it had received an amount of Rs.54,43,192/- from the complainants, which was the total sale consideration of the plot, in question. Besides the aforesaid amount, the complainants deposited another amount of Rs.1,03,791/- with the Opposite Party, which being the excess, was refunded to them vide letter dated 3.2.2012 (Annexure R-2 colly.). The Opposite Party has admitted in Para 9 of its written statement that since it (Opposite Party) was unable to deliver possession of the allotted plot, the complainants were offered Plot No.237 on 06.08.2013. The complainants vide their letter/email dated 06.08.2013 (Annexure C-18) wrote to the Opposite Party as under:-

“From P. S. Arora (Sent: 06 August 2013 16:27 PM

To:Dear Aditi,

This is in regard to your email Dt.04.08.2013.

I hereby confirm Relocation of my unit no.125, Central greens to Unit no.237, Central park (Corner Plot facing Park) Sector 105 on the following terms & conditions:

1. The plot no 237 should be a regular plot in all aspects.
2. The possession as conveyed verbally is 1^st Nov 2013.
3. The differential amount will be paid only after its sure that the plot is Possessionable/Constructable.
4. The balance amount will be paid as full & final settlement after adjusting dues of Both Parties i.e. Emaar Mgf & Parminder Singh.
5. As discussed verbally with Mr. Kaura My 1^st option is Plot No.105-CG-125-400 and second option is 105-CP-237-386 which ever comes for possession at an early date.

Thanks & Regards

Parminder Singh”

When the Opposite Party vide letter dated 11.4.2014 (Annexure C-20), informed the complainants that the process of handing over possession of plots in Sector 105 shall commence within 60 days, despite  reminder and notice dated 1.8.2014 and 15.10.2014 respectively, the complainants failed to make payment of the balance amount. The complainants have averred that the dimensions of the subsequent offered Plot No.237 did not match with the original plot. This fact is evident from email dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure R-5). As discussed above, since the dimensions of  Plot No.237  did not match with the originally allotted Plot No.125, the complainants represented to the Opposite Party vide representation dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure C-27) and sought refund of the amount deposited. Though the Opposite Party replied vide letter dated 9.1.2015 (Annexure C-28) that it (Opposite Party) was looking into the concern of the complainants and decision shall be communicated, but it (Opposite Party) issued notice dated 03.02.2015 (Annexure C-29) demanding the amount due and threatening the complainants to cancel the allotment. The complainants did not make payment. This action, on the part of the complainants after the Opposite Party offered possession and sought payment of dues, amounted to rescinding the contract. If the alternate plot was not matching to the specifications of initially allotted plot, the complainants could retain initially allotted plot and for delayed possession, they were entitled to compensation @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month in terms of Clause 8 of Plot Buyer’s Agreement. Seeking refund of the amount, amounted to rescinding the contract.

19.       Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007 shall, therefore, be attracted and, in terms thereof, 30% of the total sale consideration was forfeitable. Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-6), reads as under:-

“2(f) The Allottee has entered into this Agreement on the condition that out of the amounts paid/payable by the Allottee towards the Sale Price, the Company shall treat 30% of the Sale Price as Earnest Money (hereinafter referred to as “the Earnest Money”). However, if the Allottee chooses not to sign this Agreement and further chooses to forfeit his allotment, then 20% of the amount paid by the Allottee at the time of the Expression of Interest shall stand forfeited and the rest of the amount (if any) shall be refunded to the Allottee. However, after signing this Agreement, in order to ensure the fulfillment, by the Allottee, of all the terms and conditions as contained in the application and this Agreement and in the event of the failure of the Allottee  to perform all obligations set out in this Agreement or fulfill all the terms and conditions of this Agreement or in the event of failure of the Allottee to sign and return this Agreement in its original form to the Company within 30 (Thirty) days from its date of Receipt by the Company, the Allottee hereby authorizes the Company at its sole option and discretion, to forfeit out of the amounts paid by the Allottee, the Earnest money as aforementioned together with any interest paid, due or payable, any other amount of a non-refundable nature. The Allottee further agrees that the condition of forfeiture of Earnest Money shall remain valid and effective till the execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed for the Plot and the Allottee hereby authorizes the Company to resort to such forfeiture after considering the above mentioned 30 (Thirty) days as notice period to the Allottee and the Allottee has agreed to this condition to indicate the Allottee’s commitment to faithfully fulfill all the terms and conditions contained in the Allottee’s application and this Agreement.”

No doubt, as per the afore-extracted Clause 2(f) of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-6), in case the allottee failed to perform all obligations set out in this Agreement or fulfill all the terms and conditions of the same, the Opposite Party was at liberty, to forfeit the Earnest money viz. 30%, out of the amounts paid by the complainants together with any interest paid, due or payable, any other amount of a non-refundable nature. It was also made clear in the afore-extracted clause that if the complainants chose not to sign the Agreement and further chose to forfeit their allotment, then 20% of the amount paid by them at the time of the Expression of Interest was to be forfeited and the rest of the amount was refundable to them. As stated above, the complainants, sought refund of amount. This amounted to surrender of the plot, in question, and, as already observed above, the Agreement between the parties, stood rescinded. However, in our considered opinion, fixing 30% of sale consideration, as earnest money, and forfeiture thereof, can be said to be unreasonable and unconscionable. Since such a condition in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-6) is unilateral, unreasonable and unconscionable, it can be said that by incorporating the same, the Opposite Party indulged into unfair trade practice. A similar question arose in DLF Ltd. Vs. Bhagwanti Narula, Revision Petition No.3860 of 2014, decided on 06.01.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein as per the Agreement, 20% of the sale price of the premises was to collectively constitute the earnest money, which was to be forfeited, in case, the allottee made a default in payment of instalments(s) and asked for refund of the amount deposited. Such Clause came up for interpretation, before the National Commission, in the aforesaid case. The National Commission, ultimately, held that an Agreement having forfeiture Clause of more than 10% of the sale consideration, would be invalid, as it would be contrary to the established legal principle that only a reasonable amount could be forfeited, in the event of default, on the part of the buyer. In the aforesaid case, the National Commission placed reliance on Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 704, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted the contention that, in appropriate case, the Consumer Forum, without trenching upon acute disputed questions of fact, may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant relief, though, each case depends upon its own facts. Ultimately, the National Commission, in the aforesaid case, held that the amount exceeding 10% of the total sale price, could not be forfeited, by the seller. Relying upon, what has been held above, in DLF Ltd.’s case (supra), in our considered opinion, Clause 2(f) contained in Annexure C-6 providing for forfeiting 30% of the sale consideration, being unreasonable and unconscionable, amounted to unfair trade practice. It is, therefore, held that the Opposite Party is only entitled to forfeit 10% of the sale consideration of the plot, and not 30% of the same.

20.              The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to what amount the complainants would be entitled, in such circumstances. Thus, as held above, only 10% of the sale consideration could be forfeited. The total sale consideration as per Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-6) was Rs. 54,43,192/- including External Development Charges (EDC) and Preferential Local Charges (PLC). The complainants, in their complaint, have sought refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.55,43,192/- apart from other reliefs. However, the Opposite Party, in Para 8 of its written statement, admitted that as per its record, it had received an amount of Rs.54,43,192/- from the complainants, which was the total sale consideration of the plot, in question. Besides the aforesaid amount, the complainants deposited another amount of Rs.1,03,791/- with the Opposite Party, which being the excess, was refunded to the complainants vide letter dated 3.2.2012 (Annexure R-2 colly.). The complainants neither challenged refund of Rs.1,03,791/- by the Opposite Party nor rebutted the same by filing any rejoinder to the same. Thus, in our considered opinion, the complainants deposited an amount of Rs.54,43,192/- with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party could forfeit only 10% of the total sale consideration viz. Rs.54,43,192/- (Page 45). Therefore, the amount of forfeiture shall come to Rs.5,44,319/-. The complainants are, thus, entitled to Rs.48,98,873/- i.e. (Rs.54,43,192.00 minus (-) Rs.5,44,319.00). By not refunding this amount, the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service.

21.       The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to any compensation or not. In our considered opinion, the complainants had made payments in the sum of Rs.54,43,192/-, which was undoubtedly their hard earned money. For rescinding the contract, the complainants stand penalized by forfeiting 10% of the total sale price in the sum of Rs.5,44,319/-. The complainants have certainly suffered physical harassment and mental agony at the hands of the Opposite Party, for which, they need to be suitably compensated. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, would be just and adequate, to meet the ends of justice.     

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

23.        For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Party is held liable and directed in the following manner:-

(i)   To refund the amount of Rs.48,98,873/- i.e. [Rs.54,43,192.00 (amount paid) minus (-) Rs.5,44,319.00 being 10% of Rs.54,43,192.00], to the complainants, alongwith interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 60 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-  (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only), to the complainants, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainants.

(iv)  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) above, with interest @15% per annum, instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and amount mentioned in Clause (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of default, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

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

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

Pronounced

June  08, 2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Ad