Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/287/2015

Shipali Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Lakhbir Singh, Adv.

16 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	287 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	16.05.2016

 

Shipali Sharma w/o Sh. Sachin Sharma, H.No.1381, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, through its Managing Directors/ Directors, SCO No.120-122, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.  

                                                    .... Opposite Party

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh. Lakhbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was induced by the representative of the Opposite Party to purchase residential plot in its project ‘Mohali Plots’ at Mohali Hills in Mohali. The complainant was assured regarding, providing of salient features such as 100 ft. wide road connecting to Chandigarh, wide internal roads, drainage, sewerage, 24 hour water and electric supply etc. and also assured regarding giving possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 12 months from the date of booking of the plot. Therefore, the complainant booked a residential plot No.109-AP-431-300 measuring 300 sq. yards in the project ‘Mohali Plots at Mohali Hills’, Sector 109, Mohali on 10.09.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs to the Opposite Party. The ‘welcome letter’ dated 10.09.2012 alongwith schedule of payment was issued by the Opposite Party (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties on 11.10.2012 (Annexure C-2). It was stated that the total price of the unit was calculated at Rs.50,43,300/- and the complainant was required to pay the requisite amount of the unit from time to time in installments, as per schedule of payment. It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Buyer’s Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainant by 10.10.2013 i.e. within 12 months from the date of execution of the Agreement but it failed to hand over the same within a stipulated period. It was averred that the complainant paid 95% of the total price of the unit, as per the schedule of payment, which was calculated as Rs.48,18,300/-. It was further averred that the Opposite Party was duty bound to pay compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month on account of delay in giving possession of the unit, after proper development in the project,  but it did not pay the same. It was further stated that the Opposite Party failed to complete the project, despite possession was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure C-5) and demanded additional amount of Rs.7,36,267/-. On receipt of the letter, aforesaid, the complainant visited the site, in question, and was shocked to see the ground reality as there was no development on the project site. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Party vide mail dated 14.10.2015 to supply the copy of Completion Certificate but it failed to do so. It was further stated that since no development work was carried out at the site, the complainant did not pay the amount, as demanded by the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 13.07.2015. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.           The Opposite Party, in its written version, has taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and also, it separately, moved an application u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement.  It was further stated that the complainant has not rescinded the contract due to alleged delay in handing over possession, further shows that time is not the essence of the contract and she accepted the alleged delay without protest. It was further stated that there was no definitive agreement stating that possession would definitely be delivered within 18 months. The word used in Clause 8 is “endeavor” which means to try/make effort. It was further stated that this Commission has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint, as the amount claimed together with interest exceeds Rs.1 crore. It was further stated that the complainant purchased the unit in 2012 out of her own free will, after understanding all terms and conditions and payment schedule. It was further stated that the total consideration of the unit was Rs.50,43,300/-. It was pleaded that as per the Agreement, the Company endeavoured to hand over possession of the unit within 12 months and beyond 18 months, the Company would be liable to pay compensation, if it fails to deliver the possession. It was further pleaded that the Opposite Party received an amount of Rs.48,18,300/- towards the unit from the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Party offered possession of the unit to the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015 on completion of amenities/services, as per terms of the Agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Party also obtained partial completion certificate (Exhibit OP/2). It was further stated that the complainant always wanted to wriggle out of the Agreement and the same, at this stage, would attract forfeiture clause, since possession has been offered. It was averred that the Company was committed to honour its commitment of paying/adjusting compensation, as per terms of the Agreement and it is to be taken up at the time of final handing over/registration. It was further averred that the complainant failed to come forward to take possession despite intimation sent to her in July, 2015. It was further stated that the complainant failed to lead any evidence to prove that the area has not been developed.  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.

3.           The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

4.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

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

6.           Admittedly, the complainant booked unit bearing No.109-AP-431-300 in the project of the Opposite Party and total sale consideration of the unit, in question, was Rs.50,43,300/-, as stipulated from Buyer’s Agreement, which was executed between the parties on 11.10.2012 (Annexure C-2). It is also the admitted fact that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.48,18,300/- as stipulated from statement of account (Annexure C-3). It is also the admitted fact that the Opposite Parties offered possession of the unit to the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015  (Annexure C-5).   At the time of arguments, Counsel  for the complainant stated that the complainant availed the loan from Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, as stipulated from the provisional statement for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, which was thereafter, takeover by Axis Bank and also placed on record copy of Interest Certificate for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016.

7.           The principal question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of  1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in the cases titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016 and Praveen Kumar Arora & Anr. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Complaint case No.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016 decided alongwith other connected cases, the issue regarding the arbitration has been dealt with in detail by this Commission and after giving detailed findings, the argument raised on behalf of the Builder that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, has been rejected. In view of the above, it is held that this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

8.           As far as the objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, on the ground that amount claimed by complainant together with interest exceeds Rs.1 crore and, as such, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant has sought refund of the amount of Rs.48,18,300/-, paid by her, towards price of the said unit, alongwith interest @24% p.a ; compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs, for mental agony & harassment ; compensation towards house rent @Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of booking and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @24% p.a., aggregate value whereof [excluding the interest claimed], if clubbed together, fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, for the reasons given hereinafter.

              The question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, interest @24% p.a, claimed by the complainant, on the deposited amount of Rs.48,18,300/- aforesaid, was required to be added, to the value of the reliefs claimed, or not, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission.  In Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the facts were that the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, claiming an amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, with interest @18% per annum, on this amount, from the date of claim, till realization. It also claimed suitable damages, on account of loss caused to it. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide order dated 08.08.2002, disposed of the complaint, with liberty reserved to the complainant, to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that if interest @18% P.A. was allowed, on the amount of Rs.18,33,000/- it (amount) will exceed Rs.20 lacs (at that time the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upto Rs.20 lacs), for which it had no pecuniary Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant/appellant filed the aforesaid appeal. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid appeal, held as under:-

“Bare reading of the prayer made would show that the interest claimed by appellant pertains to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future. Rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of State Commission and the stage for exercise of such a discretion would be the time when the complaint is finally disposed of. Thus, the State Commission had acted erroneously in adding to the amount of Rs.18,33,000/- the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till date of filing of complaint for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction before reaching the said stage. Order under appeal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint is now to be dealt with by the District Forum instead of State Commission.

Accordingly, while accepting appeal, the order dated 8.8.2002 is set aside. On complaint being returned by the State Commission, the appellant is permitted to file it before the appropriate District Forum for being decided on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs”.

              Not only this, a similar question regarding pecuniary Jurisdiction, fell before this Commission, in a case titled as Karnail Singh  and another Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2014 decided on 09.04.2014. In that case also, an objection was raised by the Opposite Parties (Emaar MGF Land Limited) that since the complainants,  had sought refund of amount of Rs.62,60,750/- alongwith interest @24% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, alongwith compensation and litigation costs, as such, if the reliefs are clubbed together alongwith interest claimed, the aggregate value therefore fell above Rs.1 crore, and as such, this Commission had no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In that case, while rejecting the said objection of the Opposite Parties, this Commission, while placing reliance on Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.’ case (supra),  came to the conclusion that it had pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and ordered refund of the amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation costs, vide order dated 09.04.2014. Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties (Emaar MGF Land Limited) against the order dated 09.04.2014, before the National Commission, was dismissed with punitive damages of Rs.5 lacs. Still feeling aggrieved, the Opposite Parties, filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.29392 of 2014, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in limine, vide order dated 14.11.2014. In this manner, the findings given by this Commission in Karnail Singh and another’s case (supra), while placing reliance on Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case (supra), to the effect that it has pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, were upheld by the National Commission, and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Recently, in the case of Enis Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Consumer Case No. 196 of 2016, decided On 08 Mar 2016, it was clearly held that interest component being imaginary, will not be added in the reliefs sought by the consumers, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The principles of law, laid down, in the cases referred to above, are fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In view of the above, the submission of Counsel for Opposite Party, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

9.           No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, placed reliance on Smt. Chand Rani (dead) by LRs. Vs. Smt. Kamal Rani (dead) by LRs., AIR 1993 SC 1742, a case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  to contend that time was not the essence of contract. The facts of  Smt. Chand Rani's case (supra), are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Smt. Chand Rani's case (supra), related to the specific performance of contract. It was held that intention to make time, as the essence of contract, must be expressed in unequivocal terms in the Agreement. It was, under these circumstances, held, in the said case, that time was not the essence of contract. Whereas, in the instant case, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 11.10.2012,  the Opposite Party was to hand over physical possession of the said unit, in favour of the complainant, within a maximum period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the same i.e. latest by April, 2014 but it (Opposite Party) failed to hand over possession of the unit to her, within the stipulated time frame as mentioned in the Agreement.  The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Therefore, no help, from the aforesaid case, can be drawn, by the Opposite Party. The plea taken by the Opposite Party, in its written statement, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. According to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure C-2), subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Party, it was to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was further mentioned that in the event 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 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, the Company should be liable to pay penalty. It is, thus, evident, from this Clause, that the Opposite Party was required to deliver possession of the unit, in question, in favour of  the complainant,  within the maximum period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the  Agreement dated 11.10.2012, i.e. latest by April, 2014.  However, the Opposite Party failed to give possession of the unit to the complainant, within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the Agreement.  Moreover,  the Opposite Party already received a huge amount of Rs.48,18,300/-, towards the said unit, as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure C-3). By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the  Agreement, the Opposite Party failed to abide the commitments, as such, it was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.48,18,300/-, deposited by her, towards the part price of unit, in question. The complainant, in her complaint has sought refund of the amount, deposited by her, towards the same. Under these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount, deposited by her, towards the said unit.  By not refunding the amount to the complainant, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service.

              At the time of arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that when complainant sought refund of the amount, forfeiture clause is applicable upon the complainant. In a similar case relating to delayed possession, titled as Guninder Jeet Singh Salh Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Consumer Complaint No. 113 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 23.09.2015, noting ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), it was said that the consumer can claim refund. The National Commission was dealing with a similar situation, in the above case. In that case also, possession was not offered within the stipulated period. The consumer complaint was filed by the complainant, before this Commission, claiming refund of the amount paid by him. This Commission took it as a case of rescinding of contract and allowed the Opposite Parties to forfeit 10% of the deposited amount. The above named builder went in appeal, which was dismissed, by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, holding as under:-

 

 “It is apparent from the above clause, that possession of the apartment was to be handed over within a period of 36 months from the date of allotment,  with  grace period of 3 months. Admittedly, no possession was offered to the original allottee or to the respondent, till 26.11.2011 when she stepped into the shoes of original allottee. Thus, on the date of accepting the present respondent as allottee on 26.11.2011, the apartment in question was not complete.

 

23.    As appellants did not offer possession within the period prescribed under Clause 21 of the ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, the deficiency on the part of appellants,  started right from that very moment. It is an admitted fact, that while offering the possession even in the year 2013, appellants sent letter dated 13.5.2013 and  respondent was asked to deposit sum of Rs.3,05,969.70, within 30 days. When payment of the instalments is construction linked,  then we fail to understand as to how  before completing the construction appellants demanded the aforesaid amount.  This act of appellants goes on to show, that even on 13.5.2013 construction of apartment was not complete. It was only vide letter dated 16.8.2013, appellants offered possession of the apartment,  subject to certain payments.

24.    Thus, appellants themselves have violated the material conditions with regard to handing over of the possession, now it does not lie in their mouth to demand further payment from  the respondent. Even assuming for arguments sake, that payment as demanded vide letter dated 16.8.2013 was due, but the respondent was fully justified in not making the payment, when appellants failed to complete the construction and handover the possession, within the agreed period.  Appellants could not force the respondent, after having accepting money from the original allottee in the year 2006 and  part payment from present respondent in the year 2011, to accept possession of the apartment in the year 2013,  which was against the terms of the Agreement.  The above facts clearly goes on to show, that appellants have been enjoying the substantial amount of money received by them in the year 2006, till 2013.  Therefore, this plea of appellants, that they have done their part of the duty and it is the respondent who is defaulter, does not hold any water.

25.    The deficiency on the part of appellants is writ large in this case. We may note, that under such circumstances there was no occasion for the State Commission to have deducted 10% of the deposited amount as respondent was not at fault at all. On the other hand, appellants were deficient when they themselves have violated the terms and conditions of ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, The case law relied by ld. counsel for appellants are not applicable at all to the facts of the present case.”

It was clearly stated by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill’s case (supra), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. It is the admitted fact that possession of the unit, in question, was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure C-5). According to the Opposite Party, the complainant has failed to come forward to take possession of the unit. Even the Opposite Party has placed on record copy of partial Completion Certificate (Exhibit OP/2) and states that the complainant has not led any evidence to prove that the area has not been developed. It is, no doubt, true that the Opposite Party offered possession of the unit bearing No.109-AP-431-300 of the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure C-5) and demanded Rs.7,36,267/- from her. On receipt of the letter, the complainant got suspicious and visited the site, in question. According to the complainant, she was shocked to see the ground reality, as no development was there on the project site in Sector 109 and there was no approach/connecting roads, no proper internal roads, no water and drainage system, no street lights and there was not even a semblance of any development being carried out in Sector 109, where the plot was allotted to the complainant. It is further pointed out by the complainant that the land at the site was filed with pits, ditches and the land of proposed project of the Opposite Party is surrounded by village and houses and she was informed by the villagers that there are many disputes pending in Courts with the land owners as well as with the persons to whom the plots were allotted by the Opposite Party.  As such, since no development work has been carried out at the site, so the complainant did not pay the amount, as demanded by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 13.07.2015. After going through the averments of both the parties, we are of the view that the complainant is not at fault. No doubt, the Partial Completion Certificate was issued by GMADA to the Opposite Party vide memo dated 16.10.2015 (Exhibit OP/2). Moreover, the complainant has also placed on record copy of letter dated 2.12.2015 (Annexure C-9), in which, GMADA informed under the RTI Act that the Opposite Party has applied for completion certificate with respect to Sectors 99, 104, 105, 106, 108 and 109 Mohali, which is still under consideration in their office. The possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainant by the Opposite Party within a maximum period of 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. latest by April, 2014 but offer of possession was given by the Opposite Party on 13.07.2015 i.e. after about 1 year and 3 months of the completion of the stipulated date mentioned in the Agreement. Even the Partial Completion Certificate was given by GMADA to the Opposite Party vide memo dated 16.10.2015, which itself proves that the Opposite Party was not in a position to hand over physical possession of the unit to the complainant, within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the Agreement i.e. April, 2014. It is made clear that the Opposite Party has not fulfilled its part of the Agreement and failed to develop the infrastructure alongwith other amenities and nor given physical possession of the unit to the complainant till April, 2014. So, the Opposite Party is, thus, in breach of its part of the obligation and is deficient in providing services even after receipt of the huge amount and, as such, the Opposite Party is not entitled to forfeit any amount, and refund the deposited amount to the complainant.  

12.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to interest, on the amount of Rs.48,18,300/-, if so, at what rate. The complainant was deprived of her hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.48,18,300/-, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Party, that it would be handed over legal physical possession of the unit, in question, after the completion of maximum period of 18 months from the Agreement i.e. by April, 2014. However, the Opposite Party failed to deliver physical possession of the unit to the complainant, within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the Agreement. The complainant was, thus, caused financial loss.  Hard earned money, deposited by the complainant, towards price of unit, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Party, for a number of years. Had this amount been deposited by the complainant, in some bank, or had she invested the same, in some business, she would have earned handsome returns thereon. It is therefore, held that the Opposite Party, by neither delivering possession of the unit, by the stipulated date, as mentioned in the Agreement, nor refunding the amount to the complainant, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. No doubt, as per Clause 3 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement, the Opposite Party was charging interest @24% per annum compounded quarterly from the complainant. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, if  interest  compounded quarterly @15%, on the amount deposited by the complainant, from the respective dates of deposits, is granted, that will serve the ends of justice.  

13.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the  complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment caused to her. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant(s). 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 Opposite Party, for a number of years, as they neither delivered physical possession of unit, within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the Agreement, nor refunding the amount to her. The complainant purchased the unit, with the hope to have a roof over her head, by raising construction thereon, but her hopes were dashed to the ground. The complainant, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. Compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

14.          With regard to the compensation towards house rent @Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of booking of the unit, as claimed by the complainant, we are of the view that when sufficient amount i.e. refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly as well as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses,  granted to the complainant, so there is no need no grant any house rent, as sought by her. 

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

16.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Party is directed, as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.48,18,300/-, to  the complainant, alongwith interest compounded quarterly @ 15%, from the respective  dates of deposits onwards, within 45 days, from   the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this   order.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
4. Axis Bank shall have the first charge, on the amount to be refunded, to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, to the extent, the amount is due to them, against the complainant as they had advanced loan in her favour for part payment of the price of unit, in question, under the Interest Certificate for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 issued by Axis Bank.
5. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest compounded quarterly @18 %, instead of compounded quarterly @ 15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest compounded quarterly @15%, on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

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

Pronounced.

May   16, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

 

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER