Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/178/2016

Sudesh Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Dev. Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Rupali Shekhar Verma, Adv.

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	178 of  2016
Date of Institution	:	03.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	16.08.2016

 

Sudesh Rani aged 64 years wife of Ashok Kumar Khanna, resident of Flat No.5065/3, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, having Corporate Office at S.C.O. 139-140, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. General Manager, Omaxe Chandigarh Extension at Mullanpur, Phase-II, Punjab, at S.C.O. 139-140, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

              .... Opposite Parties

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:       Ms.Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the    complainant.

      Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the opposite   parties.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT’

                The complainant is a senior citizen. By moving an application, she booked a plot measuring area of 300 square yards, in a project launched by the opposite parties, known as ‘Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’ at Mullanpur, Punjab. It is stated that when application was moved, the complainant was residing in a flat. Her dream was to live in a good comfortable house, which led her to purchase above said plot. On 04.12.2010, she paid an amount of Rs.13.50 lacs, towards booking amount and she opted to make payment, through time linked plan. At the time of booking, she was assured that possession of a developed plot will be handed over to her within three years, from the date of booking i.e. on or before 03.12.2013. Thereafter, she further made payment of an amount of Rs.8.10 lacs, on 15.06.2011. Despite having received substantial amount, Buyer’s Agreement was not got signed. However, to overcome the delay, she was issued an allotment letter on 12.12.2011, allotting plot measuring 321 square yards. Price of the plot was also increased to Rs.58,64,320.24Ps. After about 18 months of booking of the plot on 04.12.2010, Allotment letter/Agreement was got signed only on 27.04.2012,  which was drafted in a standard format and it was one sided, favoring only the opposite parties. She signed it under duress. As per Clause 24 (a) of the Allotment Letter/Agreement possession of the unit was to be handed over to her, within a period of 18 months, from the date of issuance of Allotment Letter/Agreement i.e. from 27.04.2012, with extended period of six months, subject to force majeure circumstances. In para no.9 of the complaint a chart showing payments made by the complainant, has been depicted as under:-

	Demand on	Amount Due	Paid on	Amount
	04.10.2010	13,50,000.00	04.12.2010	13,50,000.00
	25.05.2011	08,10,000.00	15.06.2011	08,10,000.00
	05.01.2012	07,32,150.00	10.02.2012	07,32,150.00
	13.03.2012	06,18,430.00	10.04.2012	06,18,430.00
		05,78,430.00	09.07.2012	05,78,430.00
	27.01.2013	06,18,430.00	20.02.2013	06,18,430.00
	29.04.2013	05,78,430.00	22.05.2013	05,78,430.00
	30.05.2014	02,89,215.00	17.06.2014	02,89,215.00
				55,75,085.00

 

2.         By the month of June 2014, the complainant had paid approximately 95% of the total sale consideration. Visits to the project site, gave a very dismal picture, as the same was totally undeveloped. Plot allotted was only shown in the layout plans etc. To show that there was no development at the site, photographs were brought on record as Annexure C-7. When request made failed to get any response from the opposite parties, qua delivery of possession, an email was written on 17.02.2016, requesting the opposite parties to intimate, as to when possession is going to be delivered. In the reply, vide email dated 17.03.2016, she was intimated as under:-

“The company has already started offering the possession in phase-2, the possessions are being carried out in phases, the tentative date of offer of possession will be mid of this year”.

3.         Even on 17.03.2016, no commitment was made by the opposite parties, as to when, possession of the plot will be delivered. Faced with the situation, the complainant filed consumer complaint before this Commission, with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to deliver possession of the plot, in question; pay compensation, by way of interest, on the deposited amount, for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the plot; compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as also litigation expenses.
4.         Upon notice, joint reply was filed by the opposite parties. In the said reply, attempt has been made by the opposite parties, to defeat prayer made by the complainant, on frivolous grounds, like this Commission has got no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction; complainant being an investor would not fall within the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as she had purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, to gain huge profits.
5.         Factual matrix of the case was not controverted. Payment made by the complainant was not denied. Purchase of plot by the complainant and payments made are also not disputed. It was stated that as per Clause 24 (a) of the Allotment Letter/Agreement, beyond the period of 18 months, the opposite parties can get further six months to deliver possession of the plot. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the said Allotment Letter/Agreement, when computing the above said period, Sundays, Saturdays, Bank Holidays, etc. are to be ignored.  Prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
6.         In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of the opposite parties.
7.         The parties led evidence in support of their case.
8.         We have Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
9.         In her complaint, the complainant has sought following relief:-

1. The complainant (complaint) may be allowed with costs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-;
2. Opposite party number 1 and 2 may further be directed to pay interest @24% p.a. to complainant on the period of delayed possession i.e. from October, 2013 till the date of actual possession;
3. Opposite party number 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and undue hardship caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices;
4. Further, the Opposite party number 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to hand over the possession of a developed plot in question at the earliest;
5. To pass any other order and/or relief in favour of complainant as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice;
6. Permission may kindly be granted to the Complainant to plead and pray for alternative prayer(s) if so required, at a later stage”.

10.         As per admitted facts on record, the complainant purchased the plot, in question, and deposited an amount of Rs.13.50 lacs, on 04.12.2010. Thereafter, she again made payment of amount of Rs.8.10 lacs on 15.06.2011. On receipt of huge amount, Agreement was not got signed. To cover the delay, one allotment letter was issued on 12.12.2011, showing provisional allotment of plot no.974, measuring 321 square yards to the complainant.  Agreement in the shape of Allotment Letter was got signed on 27.04.2012 i.e. after a period of 16 months, on receipt of first payment of Rs.13.50 lacs on 04.12.2010. This Commission has held in number of cases that if Agreement is not presented for signing within a reasonable time, from the date of receipt of earnest money, it would amount to adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of a builder.  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”.

11.         In the present case, Allotment Letter/Agreement was got signed after about 16 months of receipt of huge amount. By doing so, the opposite parties have indulged into unfair trade practice, for which the complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation, as per prayer made at the time of arguments. It is specific case of the complainant that when amount was deposited on 04.12.2010, representative of the opposite parties stated that possession will be delivered within three years, from the date of booking. However, in the Agreement it was not so said. Clause 24 (a) of the Agreement reads thus:-

“24(a) The Company shall put its best efforts to complete the development of the Plot/Project within 18 (Eighteen) months or within an extended period of six months from the date of signing of this Allotment Letter by the Allottee(s), subject to force majeure conditions [as mentioned in Clause (b) hereunder] or subject to various Plot Allottee(s) making timely payment or subject to any other reasons beyond the control of the Company. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Company  in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of any of the aforesaid reasons and the Company shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the said Plot to the Allottee(s). The aforesaid period of development shall be computed by excluding Sundays, Bank Holidays, enforced Govt. holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any Judicial/concerned State Legislative Body.”

12.         It has vehemently been contended by Counsel for the opposite parties that possession could not be delivered on account of force majeure circumstances. i.e. global recession. It was specifically agitated that from the date of allotment letter i.e. 27.04.2012, possession could be delivered within a span of 18 months (+) 6 months (+) Sundays/Saturdays/Bank Holidays etc.

                We feel that the contention raised is liable to be rejected. In the first instance, we will deal with the last argument first. In Clause 24(a) of the Agreement, it is stated that possession will be delivered within 18 months, from the date of allotment letter, with six months extension. It is further stated that when computing the said period all Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays will be excluded. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission qua another project of the opposite parties, in the case of Dr.Divya Dahiya Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited and another, Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2016, decided on 15.07.2016, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was delay in offering possession of the plot, in question, and if so, to what extent. The allotment letter for independent floor in Row-Housing Project “Silver Birch” in the project of the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-4) was issued to the complainant on 30.08.2011. As per Clause 31(a) of the allotment letter, the Opposite Parties were to complete the development of the unit within 24 months or within an extended period of six months from the date of start of construction, subject to force majeure conditions. Since allotment letter is dated 30.08.2011, by computing 24 months plus 6 months period, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the plot, in question, by 01.03.2014. The Opposite Parties have stated that period was to be computed by excluding Sundays, Bank Holidays, enforced Govt. holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any Judicial/concerned State Legislative Body. Apparently, for seeking six months extension beyond 24 months or beyond six months extended period, the Opposite Parties owe an explanation, if the delay was on account of force majure conditions but nothing by way of cogent evidence to this effect has been placed on record. Thus, when no explanation for extension of six months period has been furnished, the Opposite Parties at the most could be allowed one out of the two benefits i.e. either six months extension beyond 24 months or period on account of Sundays/Holidays etc. This Commission in Consumer Complaint No.153 of 2015 titled ‘Mr. Madan Lal Taneja and another Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers P. Ltd.’ decided on 03.11.2015, facts of which were almost identical, held that Opposite Parties were to hand over possession within 30 months from the date of start of construction. Thus, the possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered by 01.03.2014.”

13.         It was specifically held that when there is no explanation of getting extension of 6 months period to deliver possession beyond the stipulated date, the benefit of exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays etc. cannot be given. Out of the two benefits, only one can be made available to the opposite parties. In the present case, Allotment Letter/Agreement was issued on 27.04.2012. As per admitted terms and conditions, possession of the plot was to be delivered by 26.04.2014. However, it has not been so done. There is no commitment on record that possession is ready even as on today. Even future date to deliver possession has not been committed. In a very draconian manner, in the Agreement, in Clause 24(a), it has been stated that in case of delay, no claim by way of damages/compensation will be provided to the purchaser of plot. It would mean that the opposite parties can delay and hand over possession after unlimited period. Such a situation cannot be appreciated and this would mean to again indulging into unfair trade practice.
14.         What relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay, in offering possession, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Resident's Association Vs. Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., consumer complaint no.45/2015, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, on 06.05.2016. wherein, it was argued by the project proponent that at the maximum, as provided in the Agreement, the consumer will be entitled to claim penalty for delayed compensation @Rs.5/- per square feet, per month. Noting that in case of delay in making payment, the project proponent was charging heavy penal interest, instead of penal amount, the interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay was granted, by holding as under:-

“Though, the Agreement between the developer and the flat buyers provides for payment of compensation in case of delay @ Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area per month, such clauses have been found to be unfair trade practice and have been consistently rejected by this Commission in several decision, including  Consumer Complaint No. 427 of 2014 Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 08.6.2015.  Therefore, the aforesaid clauses cannot be taken into consideration, while determining the compensation payable to the members of the complainant association for the aforesaid delay in completion of construction.”

15.         Not only this, in another case, titled as Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest  on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-

 “8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1)     xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.”

16.         Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, if interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, is awarded, that would meet the ends of justice.
17.         The objection taken by the opposite parties, to the effect that the complainant being investor, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, also deserves rejection. 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 her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. On the other hand, the complainant in para no.2 of the complaint, supported by her affidavit, by way of evidence, has clearly averred that the unit, in question, was purchased by her, for her residential purpose, by constructing a house thereon.  Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by  the  opposite parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the  complainant being investor, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. 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. 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 parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
18.         The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not.

                According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to her. In the instant case, it is evident from the record, that almost all the receipts were issued by Chandigarh Office of the Company, as the same bore the address as “SCO 143-144, First Floor, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Not only this, event email dated 17.03.2016 at page 61 of the file, was also issued/replied by office of the Company at Chandigarh, as the same bore the address “SCO 139-140, Sector 8C, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh”. Since, as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the opposite parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

19.         Another objection taken by the opposite parties, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here, that the complainant has sought possession of the plot, in question, price whereof is Rs.58,64,320.24Ps. (as is evident from the document at page 44 of the file); interest @24% on the deposited amount for the period of delay in delivery of possession; compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs, for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, aggregate value whereof [excluding the interest claimed] fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.

                As far as the interest claimed by the complainant, on the amount aforesaid is concerned, it is not required to be added, at this stage, to the value of the reliefs claimed, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of law laid down by three Member Bench of the National Commission, in a case titled as Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), wherein it was clearly held that since rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of Consumer Foras, and that too at the stage, when the complaint is finally disposed of, as such, the same being imaginary would not be taken into consideration, at the time of filing of the same (complaint), for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. Not only as above, in the case of Denis Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Consumer Case No. 196 of 2016, decided on 08 March 2016, it was clearly held by the National Commission that interest component being imaginary, will not be added in the reliefs sought by the consumers, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The principles of law, laid down, in the cases referred to above, are fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In view of the above, the objection taken by the opposite parties, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

20.          As far as the plea taken by the opposite parties to the effect that delay aforesaid occurred on account of global recession, is concerned, the same deserves rejection, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, 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, wherein, while rejecting the plea of the builder, it was held as under:-

“Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression ‘slow down’ would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down’ having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project”.

 

                The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The opposite parties were deficient, in rendering service on this count too.

21.         As has been held above that by offering Allotment Letter/Agreement for signing after a period of 16 months, from the date of receiving substantial amount of Rs.35,10,580/-, the opposite parties have indulged into unfair trade practice. Interest could have been granted for those 16 months, on the amount deposited, however, we are not doing so, because we are going to award additional lump-sum amount for adoption of unfair trade practice, to the complainant, in this regard. As such, if compensation to the tune of Rs.1.50 lacs, on this count, is granted that would meet the ends of justice and will definitely put a naught on the opposite parties, for doing so, in future.
22.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to delivery of possession of the unit. As stated above, according to Clause 24 (a) of the  Allotment Letter/Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the opposite parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months i.e. 18 months plus (+) 6 months grace period, from the date of issuance of Allotment Letter/Agreement. However, it is an admitted fact that possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered, even by the date of filing the instant complaint, or even till date, despite the fact that more than 95% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.55,75,085/-  out of Rs.58,64,320.24Ps. has been paid by the complainant, for want of basic amenities at the site. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within the maximum period of 24 months from the date of Allotment Letter/Agreement i.e. latest by 26.04.2014, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the opposite parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant is certainly entitled to physical possession of the unit, in question.

                The opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant, for causing mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in providing service.

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

24.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The  opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-
    1. To hand over physical possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects,  after obtaining occupation and completion certificates, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from her (complainant).
    2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by her to the Registering Authorities.
    3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from 26.04.2014  to 31.08.2016, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
    4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.09.2016, onwards (per month), till delivery of possession, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
    5. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for adopting unfair trade practice, by not getting the Allotment Letter/Agreement signed within a reasonable period, after receiving substantial amount from the complainant, as indicated above, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
    6. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.02 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant and deficiency in providing service, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
    7. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
25.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
26.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

16.08.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 Rg