Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/302/2015

Sandeep Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikas Kumar Gupta, Adv.

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	302 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	10.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.05.2016

 

1. Sandeep Gupta s/o Dev Raj Gupta r/o Kothi No.4 Lehal Colony, Patiala, Punjab.
2. Harpal Singh s/o Sher Singh r/o Village Warring Tehsil Mandi Bariwala, District Shri Muktsar Sahib.

 

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office : ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, through Sh. Sarwan Gupta, Managing Director/ General Manager/ Proprietor.
2. M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, SCO No.120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through Ms.Anamika Kalra AGM.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh. P.L.Garg, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that complainant No.1 booked/purchased plot No.141, size 400 sq. yards in Augusta Park, Sector 109 and paid an amount of Rs.13,80,000/- to the Opposite Parties vide receipt (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, Agreement was signed and executed between the parties on 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-2). As per the Agreement, the total sale price of the unit was Rs.48,25,472/-. It was stated that complainant No.1  was serving at Chandigarh and he was not having his own house and, as such, he was interested in purchasing the aforesaid plot. It was further stated that the sons of the complainants are fast friends and due to non-delivery of possession of the unit and escalation of the prices of the construction material, complainant No.1 joined complainant No.2 with him, so that they could construct the house jointly, as complainant No.2 was also interested to reside at Mohali for further higher studies of his children. Complainant No.1 made a request on 28.05.2009 to add the name of complainant No.2 as co-applicant/purchaser in the Agreement. In this regard, the Opposite Parties issued a letter dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure C-3) and added the name of complainant No.2 as co-applicant/allottee. It was further stated that the name of complainant No.2 was endorsed on 01.10.1999 by the Opposite Parties in the Agreement and receipts. It was further stated that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.46,05,143/- and since all the payments were made on time and due to this reason, a waiver of 5% of the cost of the plot amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- was given by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure C-5). Copies of the receipts regarding the payment of price of the unit is Annexure C-6 (Colly.). As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered to the complainants within a period of 2 years and maximum within 3 years from the date of execution of the Agreement, failing which, they were liable to pay Rs.50/- per sq. yards as penalty per month to the complainants for the period of delay beyond 3 years. It was averred that as per Clause 9 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties had to offer possession of the unit in writing to take over possession of the unit within 60 days but no written offer was made by them within the stipulated period. The complainants approached the Opposite Parties many times and requested to deliver possession of the unit, but all in vain. It was further averred that the Opposite Parties despite not handing over possession of the unit, issued a letter dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure P-7), by which, a demand of Rs.14,58,875/- was made from the complainants on the pretext of over dues, registration charges, stamp duty charges, delayed payment charges, electrification, interest free maintenance security, club membership charges, enhanced EDC, monthly maintenance charges, water charges and overdue amount charges, which was illegal. The complainants paid the entire price of the unit, after taking the loan at the rate of interest of 24% p.a. It was further stated that no basic amenities like electricity, sewerage, roads etc., which are needed/required daily to reside in any house available at the site provided by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to complete the development work till date, as per terms and conditions and no completion certificate was issued by the competent authority, which is issued after the satisfaction of all the formalities completed by the Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to obtain prior permission from the Government of India under FCA, 1980 for the use of land of the Forest Department for passage till date and, as such, the said department had already closed the entry points of Sector 109, 108 and 105 of the project of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties did not offer possession of the unit, within the prescribed period, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement. 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 complainants, 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 Parties, in their written version, have not taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and they 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 stated that as the amenities  as per terms and conditions of the Agreement were complete upto the plot of the complainants and, therefore, possession was offered to them on 22.05.2014 (Annexure I), much prior to the filing of the complaint, but the complainants did not come forward to take physical possession of the unit, in question, and now when the Opposite Parties were asking the complainants to settle the dues and come forward for registration of the sale deed in their favour, but they were avoiding making the payments.  It was further stated that as per the Agreement, in case of failure of the allottee to perform all obligations, the allottee has authorized the Company to forfeit the earnest money, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainants did not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as prescribed under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainants are not related to each other and shared the money for purchase of the plot, in question, for purposes of speculation alone. It was admitted that the Opposite Parties provisionally allotted the above unit to the complainants alongwith a payment schedule and the total cost of the unit was Rs.48,25,472/- and the said unit was to be given within a period of 3 years from the date of signing of the Agreement. It was further stated that numerous reminders were sent to the complainants for making the payments (Annexure R-2 colly.) but they defaulted in making the same, so the waiver is not applicable. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties could not hand over possession of the plot, as the amenities upto the plot of the complainants were not complete, however, after the completion of amenities, the Company offered possession of the unit to the complainants on 22.05.2014 and for delay, the Opposite Parties committed to pay delayed compensation as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that the Company already credited an amount of Rs.6.98 lacs towards compensation for delays in the complainant’s account. It was further stated that despite the fact that the Forest Department has sealed certain entry points, there is still adequate access to unit of the complainants i.e. through a motorable road and stand of the complainants that all entry points are sealed is malafide and without basis. It was further stated that in case of seeking of refund by the complainants, forfeiture clause would come into operation. 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.

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

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, complainant No.1 purchased a plot bearing No.141, measuring 400 sq. yds. in Augusta Park, Sector 109 for the total sale price of Rs.48,25,472/-, as stipulated from Plot Buyer’s Agreement, which was executed between complainant No.1 and the Opposite Parties on 11.07.2007 at Chandigarh (Annexure C-2). It is also the admitted fact that on the request of complainant No.1, the name of complainant No.2 was endorsed on 01.10.2009 in the Agreement and receipts. It is also the admitted fact that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered within a period of 2 years from the date of execution of the Agreement but not later than 3 years but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the unit to the complainants, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement.

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.           To defeat claim of the complainants, another objection was raised by the Opposite Parties that the complainants are not consumers, as they purchased the unit for commercial purposes/speculation. The Opposite Parties further objected that the complainants are having their own houses at Punjab and they are not related to each other and shared the money for purchase of the unit, in question, for the purpose of speculation alone and, as such, they would not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is, no doubt, true that earlier complainant No.1 purchased/booked the unit and Agreement was also executed between complainant No.1 and the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-2). After going through the documents and record of the case, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Opposite Parties that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, for the purpose of speculation because the complainants in para No.3 of their complaint specifically mentioned that sons of the complainants are fast friends and due to non-delivery of possession of the unit and escalation of the prices of the construction material, complainant No.1 joined complainant No.2 with him, so that they could construct the house jointly as complainant No.2 was also interested to reside at Mohali for the further higher study of his children. So, it was mutually agreed to share the price of the unit and on the request of complainant No.1 to add the name of complainant No.2 as co-applicant in the Agreement, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure C-3) intimated that the name of complainant No.2 has been added as co-applicant. Even the name of complainant No.2 was endorsed on 01.10.2009 by the Opposite Parties in the Agreement and receipts. Moreover, in their replication, the complainants stated that they have purchased the plot for their residence and not for commercial purpose.  The objection of the Opposite Parties with regard to that the complainants owns a property in Punjab, has no value, at all because the Opposite Parties failed to produce any evidence in this regard. 

              It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainants are property dealers, and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainants for investment/speculative purposes, with a view to earn profit, in future. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected. 

9.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, whether the complainants are at fault for not accepting the offer of possession given by the Opposite Parties. According to the Opposite Parties, possession has been offered to the complainants vide letter dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure – I), after completion of all the amenities, as per terms and conditions of the Agreement but the complainants did not come forward to take physical possession of the unit. On the other hand, the complainants admitted in their rejoinder that they received a letter dated 22.05.2014 from the Opposite Parties, vide which, illegal demand of Rs.14,58,875/- was raised by them under various heads, which was challenged by the complainants. The complainants further stated that they had already deposited the entire amount, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement and due to this reason, a rebate of 5% (Rs.2,30,000/-) was given as incentive by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure C-5) and in the said letter, no demand of any indemnity to get the waiver of 5% was made. A bare perusal of the letter dated 22.05.2014 written by the Opposite Parties to the complainants shows that the Opposite Parties wrote a letter only to save their skin and responsibility for the refund of the entire amount already deposited by them, as the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the unit to the complainants, as per the Agreement. The Opposite Parties had applied for the issuance of partial Completion Certificate to GMADA on 03.09.2015 then how the Opposite Parties were in a position to handover possession of the unit in dispute on 22.05.2014. According to the complainants, the six points marked as A, B, C, D, E & F in the project layout of the Opposite Parties in Village Raipur Kalan, the Forest Department already closed the entry points to Sector 109, where the plot, in dispute, is situated as well as other sectors of the Opposite Parties but till date, the Opposite Parties had not taken any permission to connect their projects with the road from the Forest Department. Even the Opposite Parties had written a letter dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure 8) to the Chief Administrator, GMADA requesting to take up the matter with the Forest Department for grant of permission to access Kharar-Banur –Tepla road in order to provide connectivity to their integrated township. From the above letter, it is proved that till date there is no permission granted by the Forest Department to the Opposite Parties to connect their projects with the Kharar-Banur-Tepla road. If there will be no way to enter in the sector, in which, the plot, in dispute, is located then how the complainants would be able to reach their plot and how they would construct the same. It is clearly proved from the letter dated 22.05.2014 that no basic amenities available at the spot because it is mentioned that temporary electricity and water connections have been sanctioned for the project. So, it is proved that the temporary connections were sanctioned only for the construction and not for the allottees. According to the complainants, the Opposite Parties failed to provide water connection, sewerage connection and electricity connection as well as other amenities, which are required for inhabitation. So, it is clearly proved that the complainants are not at fault and due to the reasons aforesaid, they are unable to come forward to take possession of the unit, in question.

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  complainants. According to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure C-2), subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 2 (two) years, from the date of execution of the Agreement, but not later than 3 (three) years. It is, thus, evident, from this Clause, that the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainants,  within the maximum period of 3 years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.07.2007, i.e. latest by 11.07.2010 but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants, within the stipulated period, as contained in the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Even the Opposite Parties offered possession of the unit to the complainants vide letter dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure I), i.e. after 7 years from the date of execution of the Agreement.  Even the Opposite Parties have already received a huge amount of Rs.46,05,143/-, towards the said unit, as is evident from the receipts (Annexure C-6 colly.). It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties admitted in their written statement that they failed to hand over possession of the unit to the complainants, as the amenities upto the plot of the complainants were not complete. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 3 years, from the  date of execution of the  Agreement, and by not abiding by the commitments, made by the Opposite Parties, they (Opposite Parties) were 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 complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.46,05,143/-, deposited by them, towards the unit, in question.  Moreover, the complainants have already paid huge amount of Rs.46,05,143/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.48,25,472/-. It is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question,  to the complainants, within the stipulated period of 3 years, as mentioned in the Agreement.  So, the Opposite Parties had no right, to retain the hard earned money of the complainants, without rendering them, any service. Since, the basic amenities of the unit, in question, had not been completed, even by the time, the complaint was filed, no alternative was left with the complainants, than to ask for refund of amount, deposited by them. In our considered opinion, the complainants are entitled to refund of amount of Rs.46,05,143/-, deposited by them.

              At the time of arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that when complainants sought refund of the amount, forfeiture clause is applicable upon the complainants.   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. Even the Opposite Parties offered possession of the unit to the complainants vide letter dated 22.05.2014 i.e. after about 7 years from the date of execution of the Agreement. Moreover, the Opposite Parties in their written statement clearly stated the Opposite Parties could not hand over possession of the unit to the complainants, as the amenities upto the plot to the complainants were not complete.  It is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties have not fulfilled their part of the Agreement and failed to develop the infrastructure alongwith other amenities and nor given possession of the unit to the complainants, within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement. So, it is clearly proved that there was no fault on the part of the complainants and the Opposite Parties are, thus, in breach of their part of the obligation and are deficient in providing services even after receipt of the huge amount and, as such, the Opposite Parties are not entitled to forfeit any amount, and refund the deposited amount to the complainants. 

12.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to interest, on the amount of Rs.46,05,143/-, if so, at what rate. The complainants were deprived of their hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.46,05,143/-, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Parties, that they would be handed over legal physical possession of the unit, in question, after the completion of maximum period of three years i.e. by 11.07.2010, but they failed to do so. The complainants, thus, incurred financial loss.  Hard earned money, deposited by the complainants, towards price of unit, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Parties, for a number of years. Had this amount been deposited by the complainants, in some bank, or had they invested the same, in some business, they would have earned handsome returns thereon. It is therefore, held that the Opposite Parties, by neither delivering possession of the unit, by the stipulated date, nor refunding the amount to the complainants, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. As per Clause 3 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were charging interest @15% per annum compounded from the complainants, under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, if  interest  compounded @15% P.A., on the amount deposited by the complainants, 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  complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment caused to them. 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 complainants suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, for a number of years, as they failed to deliver physical possession of unit, in question, to them, by the promised date i.e. 11.07.2010. The complainants purchased the unit, with the hope to have a roof over their head, by raising construction thereon, but their hopes were dashed to the ground. The complainants, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. Compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainants, are, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

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

15.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed, as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.46,05,143/-, to  the complainants, alongwith interest compounded @ 15% per annum, 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 complainants, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. The Bank from where the complainants had taken loan, shall have the first charge, on the amount to be refunded, to the complainants, by the Opposite Parties, to the extent, the amount is due to them, against the loan advanced in their favour for part payment of the price of unit, in question.
4. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
5. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest compounded     @18% P.A., instead of interest compounded @ 15% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest compounded @15% P.A., on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

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

Pronounced.

May 12, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

 

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER