Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/81/2015

Ms. Sunanda Banta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajesh Verma, & Devinder Kumar Adv.

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	81 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	04.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	16.07.2015

 

Ms.Sunanda Banta wife of Sh. Vishwa Bhushan Banta, resident of Saraf Building, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla (H.P.).

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer, having Registered Office at MGF House-17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. M/s Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, through its Branch Head/Manager/Authorized Signatory, S.C.O. 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

              ....  Opposite Parties

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

 

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

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

           

            The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied to the Opposite Parties, vide application No.478, for the allotment of a residential plot, measuring 300 square yards, in their proposed township under the name and style “Augusta Park”,  Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, Punjab and paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as booking amount.

2.       It was stated that the complainant was allotted plot no.171, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, @ Rs.11,500/- per square yard, vide provisional allotment letter dated 08.05.2007 Annexure C-1. The basic price of the said plot was to the tune of Rs.34,50,000/-. Apart from this amount, the   complainant was also required to pay External Development Charges, to the tune of Rs.1,69,104/-. It was further stated that, in this manner, in all, the complainant, was required to pay a sum of Rs.36,19,104/-, towards total sale consideration of the said plot.
3.       It was further stated that the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, in respect of plot No.171, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as plot No.171 only), was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh. Thereafter, as per the installment payment plan, the  complainant, in all, deposited an amount of Rs.37,83,604/-, as is evident from the statement of account Annexure R-1 at page 61 of the file, towards price of the said plot. 
4.       It was further stated that according to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Parties were to hand over physical possession of the residential plot, in favour of the complainant, within a period of 2 years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement). It was further stated that it was also mentioned in Clause 8 of the said Agreement, that, in case, the Opposite Parties, failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period, they were liable to pay penalty/compensation, to the allottee, @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay. Thus, the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the residential plot, to the complainant, latest by 19.06.2010. The possession was not offered to the complainant by 19.06.2010.
5.       It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, a number of times, with a request to deliver possession of plot No.171, to her, but they failed to give any positive reply. It was further stated that even a number of letters/emails were sent by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, with a request to apprise her about the development at the site, as also delivery of possession of the plot, in question, but to no avail.
6.       It was further stated that the Opposite Parties collected the huge amount, towards the price of plot, in question, by making a false promise, that physical possession thereof, shall be handed over within the maximum period of 3 years, from 20.06.2007, but they did not abide by their commitment. It was further stated that, as such, the amount of Rs.37,83,604/-, deposited by the  complainant, towards the price of plot, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Parties, as a result whereof, she was caused huge financial loss.
7.       It was further stated that since the Opposite Parties had not offered physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, in favour of the complainant, she was not able to construct house thereon, and reside therein. It was further stated that, thus, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, to her, and also suffered further financial loss, on account of non-payment of compensation. It was further stated that neither possession of the plot, in question was offered, nor delivered, nor penalty/compensation, as stipulated in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, was paid to the complainant.
8.       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the  complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to deliver possession of the plot, in question; pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay; interest on the amount deposited by the complainant, from the stipulated date, till delivery of possession of the plot, in question; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, on account of mental agony and physical harassment; and  cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
9.       The Opposite Parties were served, and put in appearance, on 09.06.2015. They filed their written version, on 07.07.2015. In their written version, the Opposite Parties, pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as she (complainant) had booked the plot, in question, with an intention to earn profits, after selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate. It was further pleaded that since possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered by 19.06.2010, cause of action, for the first time to file the consumer complaint, accrued to the complainant, within a period of two years, from that date (19.06.2010), and, as such, the complaint having been filed on 04.05.2015, was palpably barred by time. It was further pleaded that this Commission had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that the consumer complaint was not maintainable, as only the Civil Courts had the Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that since an arbitration Clause was incorporated, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3,  disputes, if any, between the parties, in respect of the unit, in question, could only be adjudicated upon, by the Arbitrator. It was admitted that the complainant was allotted the plot, in question, vide the allotment letter dated 08.05.2007. It was admitted that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.37,83,604/-,  towards price of the said unit, which included delayed payment interest also. It was stated that, in case of delay of delivery of possession of the plot, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Parties were to pay compensation/penalty for the period of delay. It was further stated that since it was only stipulated in the Plot Buyer's Agreement that the Opposite Parties shall make an endeavour to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007), as such, time was not the essence of contract. Execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, between the parties, in respect of the plot, in question, was also admitted. It was also admitted that the possession of plot No.171, could not be delivered, to the complainant, till the date of filing the consumer complaint. It was further stated that possession of the plot, in question, could not be delivered to the complainant, for want of completion of basic amenities, at the site. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were expediting the work, in the said project where the plot, in question, was allotted to the complainant and possession thereof, was expected to be delivered by the end of November 2015. It was further stated that it was well within the knowledge of the complainant that for any delays, stipulated penalty had been provided in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, which safeguarded her rights. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
10.       In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
11.       The complainant submitted her affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
12.       The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Mr.Sachin Kapoor, their 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.       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the  complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that the complainant had purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose, i.e. to resell the same, as and when there was escalation, in the prices of real estate. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.  It may be stated here that not even an iota of evidence, was placed on the record by the Opposite Parties, to prove that the complainant has a number of other residential units and houses or commercial plots. Even no evidence, was produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainant is the property dealer, and, as such, dealing in the sale and purchase of the property. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the residential plot, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn huge profits. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in its written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
15.       The  next  question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that since the Plot Buyer's Agreement Annexure C-3, in respect of unit, in question, was executed on 20.06.2007 and the possession thereof, was to be handed over by 19.06.2010, the cause of action accrued to her on that date (19.06.2010) and the complaint having been filed on 04.05.2015, was palpably barred by time. It may be stated here that, according to the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Parties were to make an endeavour to hand over physical possession of the plot, in favour of the complainant, within a period of two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement).  The Opposite Parties, frankly admitted in paragraph Nos.8,9,13 and 14 of their written version, that possession of the plot, in question, could not be handed over to the complainant, for want of basic amenities and the same was expected to be delivered by November 2015. Thus, neither possession of the plot, in question, allotted in favour of the complainant, was offered, nor delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, nor till the date of filing the complaint nor the penalty, as provided in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, was paid to her. There was, thus, a continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal  Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380,  wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement, made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well that the land, in question, was under litigation. Consumer complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Act, was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of the reason, that an arbitration Clause existed, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3.  With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986, is required to be 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 arbitration Clause, in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, would not oust the Jurisdiction of this Commission, 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 III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC). In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected

17.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether,  since the complainant  sought enforcement of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, in respect of the immoveable property, only the Civil Court had the Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the plot, in question, and she was allotted the same for consideration. According to Clause 23 of Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3,  the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Apartment Buyer's Agreement), by providing all the amenities and facilities. It was not that the complainant purchased the unit, in an open auction, on “as is where is basis”, without any further promise of the Opposite Parties  of providing amenities/ facilities, and developing the area, where the same (unit), is situated.   Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential  users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing  construction, entertainment, amusement  or the purveying  of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

18.         From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by her, as she falls within the definition of  a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.     
19.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, time was the essence of contract or not.  It may be stated here, that, in the instant case, as stated above, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Parties were to hand over physical possession of the residential plot, in favour of the  complainant, within a period of 2 years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement). It was further mentioned in Clause 8 of the said Agreement, that, in case, the Opposite Parties, failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period, they were liable to pay penalty/compensation, to the allottee, @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay. Thus, the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the  complainant, latest by 19.06.2010. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties,  thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
20.       The next question, which arises for consideration, is, as to within which period, delivery of possession of the plot, in question, was to be given to the complainant. The Plot Buyer's Agreement, Annexure C-3, in respect of plot no.171, approximately measuring 300 square yards, in Augusta Park, Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Mohali, was executed between the parties, on 20.06.2007. According to Clause 8 of this Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons, beyond the control of the Company, it was to deliver physical possession of the plot, within a period of two years, but not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). It is, thus, evident from this Clause, that the Opposite Parties, were required to deliver possession of the plot, in question, allotted, in favour of the complainant, within three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3. Admittedly, possession of the plot, in question, was not delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties, frankly admitted in paragraph Nos.8,9,13 and 14  of their written version, that possession of the plot, in question, could not be handed over to the complainant, for want of basic amenities and the same was expected to be delivered by November 2015.  On the other hand, Rs.37,83,604/- against Rs.36,19,104/-  towards price of the said plot, has been paid by the complainant, but  possession of the same, was not delivered to her, as the same had not been developed.  Still the Opposite Parties have not given any exact date of delivery of possession of plot no.171, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Augusta Park, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, to the complainant. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the plot, in question, would be given to the complainant, within the maximum period of three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Parties, they (Opposite Parties) were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant is certainly entitled to physical possession of the unit, in question.
21.       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  and Ashok Khanna Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Revision Petition No.2002 of 2005, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, on 18.08.2009, to contend that time was not the essence of contract. The facts of Smt. Chand Rani's and Ashok Khanna's cases (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. Whereas, in Ashok Khanna's case (supra), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held that at the time of delivery of possession, the respondent did not charge any additional price. Rs.57,000/- were paid by the petitioner without any protest. In the said case, the possession was taken on 15.12.1993, whereas, the complaint was filed in the later months of 1995, i.e., after a lapse of about 2 years, which showed that, at the time of delivery of possession, the petitioner was satisfied, but later on he changed his mind and filed the complaint, seeking interest on the deposited amount. 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 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, the Opposite Parties were to hand over physical possession of the residential plot, in favour of the  complainant, within a period of 2 years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same (Plot Buyer's Agreement) i.e. latest by 19.06.2010. Even after the expiry of more than about seven years, from the date of allotment of the plot, and more than about four and a half years, from the stipulated date, the possession thereof, was not delivered to the complainant. The time was, thus, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Therefore, no help, from the aforesaid case, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
22.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, in question, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date. According to Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above, the  Opposite Parties were  liable to pay to the complainant, penalty/ compensation, in the sum of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, beyond three years, from the date of execution of  the same. As held above, possession of the plot, in question, was not delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed.  The complainant is, thus,  entitled to compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 19.06.2010 (promised date) onwards, on account of delay, in delivery of possession of the fully developed plot, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above, till the possession of plot, in question, was actually delivered to her.
23.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment or not. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the  complainant. The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation.  It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore,  when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Consumer Foras, to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise the wide meaning of ‘compensation’. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the  complainant. The Commission or the Forum, in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, after making payment of Rs.37,83,604/-, towards the price of plot no.171, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Augusta Park, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, no development was made by the Opposite Parties, at the site, by the stipulated date. The complainant had purchased the said plot, to have a roof over her head, by constructing a house thereon, but her hopes were dashed to the ground, when possession of the same was not even offered to her, after about 7 years of the allotment thereof and after about 4 ½ years of the stipulated date, what to speak of delivery thereof. The complainant, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to compensation, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One lac and fifty thousand only) on account of this reason.
24.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
25.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-
    1. To hand over physical possession of plot no.171, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Augusta Park, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, to the complainant, within 3 months, complete in all respects, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of legally due amount from her (complainant).
    2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within one month, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by her to the Registering Authorities.
    3. To pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month,  from  19.06.2010 (the promised date of delivery of possession), onwards to the complainant, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-3.
    4. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, to the complainant on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice mental agony and physical harassment, caused to her (complainant), at their hands.
    5. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.
    6. Compensation, granted to the complainant, as mentioned in Clause (iii), which has fallen due upto 30.06.2015, shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A., from 19.06.2010, till realization.
    7.  Compensation accruing due @Rs.50/-per square yard, per month,   w.e.f.  01.07.2015, onwards, shall be paid by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @9 % P.A., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession of the plot, in question.
    8.  Compensation granted, in favour of the complainant, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs1,50,000/-, as mentioned in Clause (iv),  shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, within a period of 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which they shall pay interest @9% P.A., on the same, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs and compliance of other directions.
26.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
27.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

16.07.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg.