Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/860/2016

Daljit Singh Mahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Nehra, Adv.

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	860 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	30.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Daljit Singh Mahal son of Sh.Ranbir Singh, resident of House No.207, PEC Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh UT.
2. Hargurpartap Singh son of Sh.Ranbir Singh, resident of House No.33-D, Mubarik Mehal Colony, Sangrur, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

 

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office-Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. 

              ....Opposite Party

 

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

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.775 of 2016 titled as Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 775 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 775 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

 

 

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	775 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

Sukhvinder Singh Hayer son of S.Harbhajan Singh, resident of Hayer Farm House, Nangal Road, P.O. Chachoki, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

 

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Regd.  Office-Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.  

              ....Opposite Party

Argued by:       Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	859 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	30.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Jugraj Singh son of Prem Partap Singh, resident of House No.766, Ground Floor, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh U.T.
2. Sushma Rani, wife of Jugraj Singh, resident of House No.766, Ground Floor, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh U.T.
3. Prem Partap Singh son of Sh.Vali Ram Beli, resident of House No.766, Ground Floor, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh U.T.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office-Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. 

              ....Opposite Party

Argued by:       Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	860 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	30.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.03.2017

 

1. Daljit Singh Mahal son of Sh.Ranbir Singh, resident of House No.207, PEC Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh UT.
2. Hargurpartap Singh son of Sh.Ranbir Singh, resident of House No.33-D, Mubarik Mehal Colony, Sangrur, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

 

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office-Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. 

              ....Opposite Party

Argued by:       Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

======================================================

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

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid three consumer complaints, wherein the complainants have sought refund of the amount, paid towards purchase of residential units. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. At the time of arguments, on 02.03.2017, it was agreed by Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are the same, except the payments deposited by the complainants towards price of the unit(s) and therefore, all the three complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2.         To dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.775 of 2016 titled as Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited. It is stated by the complainant that the opposite party is a real estate Company and deals in development of land, establishing  township and construction of flats etc. The opposite party advertised its project, namely ‘Palm Springs’ situated at Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Punjab, to sell built-up flats, plots etc., after developing the area, providing basic amenities and other facilities. The complainant with a view to settle his son; daughter-in-law and grandchildren, near to Chandigarh, booked a plot measuring 500 square yards. At the time of sale of plot, many promises were made by the opposite party and it was assured that possession will be delivered after development, within a period of 2 years from the date of making initial payment. On 19.10.2011, he moved an application to purchase above plot.  Total price of the said plot was fixed at Rs.87.50 lacs. On above said date, he deposited an amount of Rs.26.25 lacs, through cheques. The amount paid was more than 30% of the basic price of the plot. It is case of the complainant that sale was offered in violation to  the provisions of Section 6 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (PAPRA). Written agreement to sell was not offered for signing, as promised, at the time of sale of the plot. Thereafter, again he paid an amount of Rs.17.50 lacs on 30.04.2014, through cheques. Vide letter dated 21.07.2014 Annexure C-3, issued by the opposite party, the complainant was registered for purchase of 500 square yards’ plot. On further demands raised, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.23,12,500/- on 24.08.2015, through cheques, receipt whereof is  Annexure C-4. By that time, this complaint was filed, the complainant had already deposited an amount of Rs.66,87,500/- towards price of the plot purchased. Despite having been paid above amount, even agreement to sell was not offered for signing, showing terms and conditions of the sale, and time to provide possession of developed plot. After making the last payment, when the complainant visited the site, he was astonished to see that there was no development. Then he came to know that necessary approvals had not yet been granted in favour of the opposite party by the Competent Authorities. It is stated that in terms of letter of intent dated 03.05.2013, Annexure C-5, it was specifically directed to the opposite party that before sanctioning of the lay out plan/zoning plan, the project be not put for sale. To say so, reference was made to Clause 3 of the said letter Annexure C-5, relevant part of which reads thus:-

“The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from General Public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout plans/Zoning plans are approved by the Competent Authority and exemption u/s 44 of PAPR Act 1995 is issued by the State Govt.

3.         Clause 6 of the letter of intent dated 03.05.2013, Annexure C-5 debars the opposite party to create any interest in the property qua which the same has been issued, without getting approvals and orders passed under Section 44 of the PAPRA. In the said letter of intent, many conditions were imposed upon the opposite party, before it can go-ahead with the project. When this complaint was filed, there was no exemption available from the provisions of PAPRA with the opposite party, as envisaged under Section 44 of the said Act. Feeling that possession of plot was not expected in near future, the complainant sent notice Annexure C-6 on 19.09.2016, seeking refund of amount paid, alongwith interest. In reply to that vide letter dated 30.09.2016,  payments were not controverted by the opposite party. It was also admitted that exemption from the provisions of PAPRA, as envisaged under Section 44 of that Act, has not been issued by the Competent Authority.

                It was averred that without getting permissions to develop a project and selling the plots, and also by not executing Buyer’s Agreement, the opposite party has indulged into unfair trade practice. By stating as above, the present complaint was filed, seeking refund of amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc.

4.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein numerous preliminary objections were raised. It was stated that the complainant has shown his ‘expression of interest’ to purchase the plot, which was acknowledged on 10.05.2014. It was further stated that the complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer. The investment was made to earn profits in future, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate. An attempt was made to show rosy picture of the project. It was admitted that the project was approved on 22.03.2013 Formal agreement was signed with the Government on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018. It is stated that disputed questions of fact and law are involved in the present case, as such, the matter be referred to the Civil Court. It was further stated that by depositing the amount in the years 2014-2015, it is not open to the complainant to raise any objection qua delay caused in handing over possession of the plot. Vide letter dated 30.09.2016, the complainant was asked to sign Buyer’s Agreement, however, he has failed to come forward. It was averred that withdrawal from the project is malafide and it is open to the opposite party to forfeit upto 20% of the amount paid. It was further stated that project was delayed on account of red-tapism in the offices of the Department. It was also stated that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Govt., which could be termed as force majeure circumstances. Photographs showing ongoing construction at the project site was also placed on record. It was further stated that claim of the complainant granting interest @15% p.a. is totally unjustified. Even for fixed deposits, rate of interest is very less. It was further stated that, as on today, the project stood approved by the Competent Authorities. It was further stated that huge amount has been invested by the opposite party for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute. Territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is not disputed. However, pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was disputed.
5.         On merits, it was admitted that the plot was purchased, as alleged by the complainant. It was stated that let the complainant approach the opposite party for execution of the Buyer’s Agreement. It was further stated that the development and construction work is in full swing and the opposite party is trying to complete the project, at the earliest. It was further stated that the complainant visited the project site, and examined the layout plans at the work site. He was asked to sign the Buyer’s Agreement, however, he failed to do so. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant still wanted refund of the amount deposited; the same would amount to surrender of the unit, and would attract forfeiture charges. It was averred that the intimation with regard to execution of Agreement was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 06.01.2017 Annexure O-4. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6.         In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of the opposite party.
7.         During pendency of this complaint, on 02.02.2017, the opposite party moved an application to place on record copy of notification dated 25.01.2017 issued by the Government of Punjab granting exemption in favour of the opposite party, from the provisions of PAPRA.  
8.         The parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
9.         We have heard Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of all the three cases, carefully. 
10.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that all three complaints are liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

                There is no dispute that the plot was sold to the complainant in a project propagated and marketed by the opposite party on 19.10.2011. On that date, an amount of Rs.26.25 lacs was received by the opposite party from the complainant. The payment made was more than 30% of the total sale consideration i.e. Rs.87.50 lacs, for a plot measuring 500 square yards. Thereafter, the complainant again made payment of Rs.17.50 lacs, on 30.04.2014 and an amount of Rs.23,12,500/- was paid on 24.08.2015. Perusal of receipts Annexure C-1 to C-3 makes it very clear that the entire payment was made through cheques. In the receipt Annexure C-1, it was specifically stated that all the lay out plans, specifications and other details are tentative, subject to variation and modification.  There is no dispute that when this complaint was filed, the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.66,87,500/-. Notice in this complaint was issued in the month of November 2016. There is nothing on record that by that time, after granting exemption from the provisions of applicability of PAPRA, any permission was available with the opposite party, to sell the project. Be that as it may, contention of Counsel for the complainant that the project, in question, was sold without any permission/sanction from the Competent Authorities and also violating the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA appears to be correct. The said provision reads thus:-

“6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed for together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908) ;”

 

11.         The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA has finally been granted only in this year (2017), which cannot be said to have any retrospective effect.  As such, it could very well be said that without exemption, the opposite party violates the provisions of PAPRA, and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party.
12.         To get a plot allotted, first payment was received by the opposite party on 19.10.2011. It is virtually admitted on record that when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. It is admitted in the written version that the project of the opposite party was approved only on 22.03.2013. Formal Agreement was signed with the Govt. of Punjab on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, additional area was added and supplementary agreement was signed on 16.06.2016. Notification granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA was issued only on 25.01.2017. Perusal of the said notification makes it very clear that exemption given was conditional, as has been referred in para no.5 of the said notification. Besides other conditions, condition no.5 (iii to vii), reads thus:-

“(iii). The promoter shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act No.14 of 1995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.

(iv). The promoter shall acquire the ownership of project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and land under agreement to sell. The plots falling under land proposed to be acquired if any through Govt. acquisition, plot through which revenue rasta or khali passes shall not be developed and sold till these pockets are acquired and ownership is transferred in the name of the Promoter.

(v) The plots/land to which the access is proposed through the land to be acquired if any by the Government shall not be developed and sold till that land under the access is acquired and transferred in the name of the promoter and access is provided.

(vi) The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.

(vii) Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 as well as consent to establish (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board.”  

 

13.         It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting No Objection Certificate from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party. Contention of Counsel for the opposite party that notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the sale of plots in the year 2011 etc. stands rectified. We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. When project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.251 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016, wherein it was observed as under:-

“The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA is still pending under consideration, with the Authorities concerned. Unless exemption is granted, its violation would amount to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party, in this complaint.

Qua a similar project launched by the opposite party in the same area, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, under similar circumstances, this Commission, while dismissing the said appeal, has observed as under:-

“The documents placed on record clearly show that the project was launched without getting any permission from the Competent Authorities. Detailed brochure was issued showing facilities to be made available in the project launched and its layout plan. It is also on record that when it came to the notice of GMADA that the plots/flats are being sold unauthorizedly by the appellant, it gave a notice in the newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’ dated 18.08.2012, which reads thus:-

                “PUBLIC NOTICE

This is for the information of one and all that it has come to the notice of the Competent Authority that one company named as M/s Manohar Singh & Co. is allegedly booking/selling plots in the Mullanpur- Siswan region near Chandigarh border in the State of Punjab. This is being intimated that the above said project is not approved by the State Government. The Competent Authority is initiating legal proceedings in this regard.

If anybody has booked or purchased any plot in the locality mentioned above he/she is advised to contact the undersigned along with documentary proof for further legal action against the said promoter. Further, while buying any plot in any locality falling under the jurisdiction of GMADA, all are advised to visit the website www.gmada.gov.in to verify if the colony/project is approved or not.

Chief Administrator

GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar”.

 

It is specifically stated in the notice dated 18.08.2012 that the appellant was allegedly booking/selling the plots in Mullanpur, near Chandigarh Border, in the State of Punjab, unauthorizedly. It was further stated that the project is not approved by the Competent Authority and it (Competent Authority) is initiating legal proceedings against the project proponent for its activity. Above said notice makes it very clear that when the plot was sold on 13.04.2012, the project was not approved by the Competent Authorities. It is also so reflected in the details given by the appellant with this appeal, which is available at page 33 of the paper book. Reading of above said document, makes it very clear that the project was approved by the Government on 25.04.2013; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.05.2013; Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate was granted on 31.03.2014; project was registered on 21.06.2014; No Objection Certificate by the District Forest Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was issued on 14.07.2014; Zoning plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 24.11.2015 and Detailed Project Report (DPR)/Service Plans were approved by the Chief Engineer, GMADA, Mohali, on 27.11.2015. As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land”.

 

Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.756 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, when upholding the findings given by this Commission, that the project cannot be even marketed before getting approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, to launch it, it was observed by the National Commission, as under:-

 “We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel.  While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-

If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.

6.    We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission.  As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate.  Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project.  Therefore, it is beyond one’s comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible.””

14.         It is apparent on record that at one point of time, in the year 2012, activities of the opposite party selling project without sanction was noticed by the competent authority on 18.08.2012. Notice was given stating that such activity was illegal. The opposite party has bluntly overlooked the provision of PAPRA with a view to extract money from the gullible customers without getting permission from any Competent Authority.
15.         Furthermore, the contention of Counsel for the complainant is that amount was received without offering Buyer’s Agreement for signing. This fact is clearly admitted on record. The complainant was asked to sign the Agreement only in the mid of 2016, when many complainants like the present one, started filing complaints against the opposite party. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for the project proponent to execute Buyer’s Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three months. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service. It was also so held by this Commission in Monika`s case (supra) as under:-

 

“Furthermore, it is apparent on record that the Buyer’s Agreement was not presented for signing. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for the project proponent to execute Buyer’s Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three month. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated  23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer’s Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two  to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer’s Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected”.

 

                As such, in the present case, by not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service.

16.         In the present case, an attempt has been made to by-pass the above provision by showing the sale as an expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments also, by Counsel for the opposite party stating that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed. As has been referred to, in earlier part of this order, it was an outright sale, when first payment was accepted by the opposite party, vide cheque dated 19.10.2011. Thereafter, the amount was received by the opposite party twice and in all, it has received substantial amount of Rs.66,87,500/-. Above said contention raised by the opposite party, qua similar project, in the same area, was rejected by this Commission, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi wherein it was observed as under:-

“Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice.”

 

17.         It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite party. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite party was guilty of launching a project against mandate of law.  
18.         Further contention of Counsel for the opposite party that the complainant is an investor, as such, he is not a consumer is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that there is nothing on the record that the complainant is the property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by him, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. On the other, the complainant in para no.3 of his complaint has clearly stated that the unit, in question, was purchased by him for his and his family’s personal use. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite party, mere bald assertion to the effect that the complainant is in regular habit of purchase of properties, cannot be taken into consideration. Since the opposite party has levelled allegations against the complainant, the onus lay upon it, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which it failed to do so. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the 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. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, recently under similar circumstances, in  a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

 “ In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots.  A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots.  In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members.  A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city.  A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house.  Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose.  In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

                The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

19.         No doubt, a plea has been taken by the opposite party, in its written version, to the effect that delay in delivery of possession of the plot was caused on account of ban on mining, as such, building material such as sand etc., remained short to an extent, meaning thereby that it had encountered force majeure circumstances.

                It may be stated here that as regards the alleged shortage of construction material like sand etc. in the market, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite party, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite party having invited tenders for supply of construction material and there being no response to such tenders. A similar plea for delay in delivery of possession of the units, was taken by a builder, before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in  Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  decided on 14 Aug 2015,  which was rejected and the complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to be present case. In the present case also, the opposite party failed to convince this Commission, that it actually encountered force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the unit occurred. As such, the stand taken by the opposite party, in this regard, is rejected. 

20.         It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is  unable to deliver  possession of the unit, in question, for want of development/construction, basic amenities etc. and still firm date of delivery of possession of the unit, could not be given to the complainant. Still it has been stated in the written version, that the opposite party is making efforts to deliver possession of the plot, in question. Even the photographs placed on record by the opposite party itself reveal that still it will take a long time for completing the development work. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by him. The opposite party, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the plot. Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation in providing service, on the part of the opposite party. It is a settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held  as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

21.         Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.

 

22.         Further, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

 

23.         The complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by him. In view of above facts of the case, the opposite party is also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to her, as also escalation in prices.
24.         It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that amount was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount to be ordered by this Commission, alongwith interest on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of payments actually made by them. . 
25.         In consumer complaint bearing no.859 of 2016 titled as Jugraj Singh and ors. Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited, an objection was taken up by the opposite party that the complaint be dismissed for misjoinder of parties i.e. complainant no.3 in the complaint. We are not inclined to accept that argument. It appears that complainant no.3 was added only by way of caution. It is on record that the original plot measuring 250 square yards was purchased by complainant no.3 on 16.02.2012, with a view to settle complainants no.1 and 2, near to Chandigarh. Their father (complainant no.3) transferred that plot, in the name of complainants no.1 and 2, on 22.05.2014. There is no dispute to that extent. If it is so, whatever relief is available, that will go to complainants no.1 and 2. It was a family transaction. There is nothing on record to show that any premium was received by him from complainants no.1 and 2. Amount paid by complainant no.3 towards price of the plot, in the year 2012 and thereafter paid by complainants no.1 and 2, they both will get interest thereon. Complainant no.3, after transfer of plot had no interest left in it. 
26.         In so far as complaint bearing no.860 of 2016, titled as Daljit Singh Mahal and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, the complainants therein jointly purchased plot, from one Chandan Preet who was the original allottee, by moving an application on 18.07.2014. The basic price of the plot was fixed at Rs.52.50 lacs. On 18.07.2014, they deposited an amount of Rs.15.75 lacs, towards 30% of the basic sale price of the said plot. Besides depositing that amount, further amount on different dates were deposited thereafter. When complaint was filed, they had deposited an amount of Rs.40,42,500/-.  As such, in this case, the complainants shall be entitled to get refund of the amount actually paid by them after sale of the plot, alongwith interest, w.e.f. 18.07.2014 on the amount deposited/paid and thereafter onwards. . Whatever interest was due or may have accrued in favour of the original allottee, when she had sold the unit to the complainants, on receipt of amount paid to her, has been waived off by her.
27.         It is necessary to mention here that alongwith Monika’s case supra, one more case titled as Virinder Bharadwaj Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Complaint case No.252 of 2016 was filed before this Commission. Both the complaints were allowed by this Commission vide common order dated 27.09.2016. Aggrieved of that order, the opposite party went in appeal bearing no.1436 of 2016 before the National Commission. The opposite party therein, has assailed the above said judgment, to the extent only of granting interest on the principal amount involved and payment of compensation and litigation expenses. Notice was issued confined to that extent. The opposite party was directed to refund the principal amount paid by the complainant in that case. Above fact would mean that on merits, the opposite party has failed to lay challenge to the judgment passed by this Commission, referred to above.
28.         As far as the plea taken by the opposite party, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not its (opposite party) case, that it was ready with possession of the plot, to be delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date but it was the complainant who wanted to rescind from the allotment of plot, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/financial constraints or for any personal reason, and is seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the opposite party, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that the complainant is entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per law. Otherwise also, since in the present case, Agreement was not got executed by the opposite party, as such, no terms and conditions, whatsoever, were applicable to the complainant. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.
29.         Another objection taken by the opposite party, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here, that the complainant has sought refund of amount of Rs.66,87,500/- (excluding interest claimed @15%  p.a. from the respective dates of deposits); compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, aggregate value whereof fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore.

                No doubt, the opposite party contended that if interest claimed @15% p.a. on the amount, referred to above, is added to other reliefs, this Commission has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It may be stated here that to clarify the position, a similar question fell for determination before this Commission in Surjit Singh Thadwal  Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd.,  and another, Consumer Case No. 484 of 2016, decided on 15.12.2016, wherein while negating the said plea, it was held as under:-

“Now we will deal with another contention of the opposite parties that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, it is not open to this Commission to entertain and adjudicate this complaint.  As per admitted facts, the complainant has sought refund of amount paid i.e. Rs.48,95,264/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective date of deposits; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.55,000/-. It is argued by Counsel for the opposite parties that if his entire claimed amount is added, alongwith interest claimed, it will cross Rs.1 crore and  in that event it will not be open to this Commission to entertain and adjudicate this complaint, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. To say so, reliance has been placed upon ratio of judgment of a Larger Bench of the National Commission, in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra). In the said case, it was specifically observed that when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras, it is the value of the goods and services, which has to be noted and not the value of deficiencies claimed. Further, that interest component also has to be taken into account, for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

In the first blush, if we look into the ratio of the judgment, referred to above, it appears that this Commission will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  However, on deep analysis, we are going to differ with the argument raised by Counsel for the opposite parties.  Judgment in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) was rendered by Three Judges Bench of the National Commission, without noting its earlier view of the subject. This issue, whether, when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission/ Consumer Foras, interest is to be added with other relief claimed or not, came up for consideration, before the Three Judges Bench of the National Commission in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors., II 2003 CPJ 81 (NC). In the said case, noting similar arguments, it was observed as under:-

“3. Complaint (at pp 17-36) was filed with the following prayer :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to pay the claim to the tune of Rs. 18,33,000/- plus interest @ 18% from the date of claim till its realization. Also the suitable damages caused to the complainant be ordered to be paid to the complainant.”

4. 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.”

 

It was specifically stated that interest claimed by appellant/complainant pertained to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future, need not be added in the relief claimed, to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission/Consumer Foras. It was rightly said that the rate and period for which the interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of the particular Consumer Fora, and the stage for exercise of such discretion would be the time, when final order is passed. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken is perfectly justified. There may be cases, where the complainant may not be entitled to claim any interest upon the amount paid, like the one, where he is rescinding his contract and  further at what rate interest is to be granted will be determined by the competent Consumer Fora, by looking into the facts of each case. All cases cannot be put into a straitjacket formula, to add interest claimed, to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The interest, which is a discretionary relief, cannot be added to the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. As per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) value of the goods purchased or services plus (+) compensation claimed needs to be added only, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras.

As per ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013, decided on 04.12.2015, we would like to follow the view expressed by Three Judges Bench (former Bench) of the National Commission in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. case (supra), in preference to the ratio of judgment passed by a Bench of co-equal strength (subsequent Bench) of the National Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla case (supra).

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), it was specifically observed by the Supreme Court that when a former Bench of co-equal strength has given a finding qua one legal issue, it is not open to the subsequent Bench of co-equal strength to opine qua that very legal issue and give a contrary finding. At the maximum, the subsequent Bench of co-equal strength can refer the matter to the President/Chief Justice of India to constitute a bigger Bench, to look into the matter and reconsider the legal proposition. It was further specifically held that, in case, there are two contrary views by the former and later co-equal strength Benches, the former will prevail. It was so said by looking into the ratio of judgment rendered by the Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673, wherein, when dealing with similar proposition,  it was observed as under:-

 

“12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms :-

 

(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.

 

(2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion  doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.

 

(3) The above rules are subject to two exceptions : (i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and

 

(ii) In spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh and Hansoli Devi.”

 

In Ambrish Kumar Shukla case (supra), ratio of judgment-Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) was not even discussed and considered. In view of above proposition of law laid down by the Five Judges Bench in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr.`s and also Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), it is not open to the Bench of co-equal strength to give contrary findings, to the view already expressed by a Former Bench of same strength. In Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. case (supra), decided on 02.04.2003, it was specifically observed by Three Judges Bench of the National Commission that when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras, interest component claimed by the complainant/party, is not to be added. We are of the considered view that in view of proposition of law, as explained above, the view taken in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. case (supra), to determine pecuniary jurisdiction without taking interest claimed, will prevail. As such, in the present case, we are not looking into the interest claimed by the complainant, when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  If the interest part is excluded, the amount claimed in the relief clause fell below Rs.1 crore and above Rs.20 lacs. Hence, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. In view of above, the objection raised by the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. ”

 

                Thus, the objection taken by the opposite party, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

30.         No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, in all the three complaints.
31.         For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs in the following manner:-

 

 In consumer complaint bearing no.775 of 2016 titled as Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited., the opposite party is directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.66,87,500/- to  the  complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective  dates  of  deposits onwards.

 

2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (as prayed), for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the  complainant.

 

4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a.,  instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

 

In consumer complaint bearing no.859 of 2016 titled as Jugraj Singh and ors. Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited., the opposite party is directed as under:-

 

1. To refund the amount Rs.22,50,000/- to  the  complainants no.1 and 2, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

 

2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants no.1 and 2, as also escalation in prices.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the  complainants no.1 and 2.

 

4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a.,  instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

 

In complaint bearing no.860 of 2016, titled as Daljit Singh Mahal and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party is directed as under:-

 

1. To refund the amount Rs.40,42,500/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a. The amounts paid shall be refunded, while calculating interest ordered, from 18.07.2014, when first payment was  actually made by the complainants to the opposite party, and thereafter, on subsequent dates of payments made, onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the  complainants.
4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a.,  instead of @13%, in the manner ordered above,  and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

 

32. However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in any of the above complaints, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment towards the said units, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants).
33.         Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected files, referred to above.
34.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
35.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

23.03.2017

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg.