BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Bharti Khanna daughter of Shri Madan Lal Khanna, resident of House No.121, Sector C, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt., Haryana.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Riverdale Aerovista, Village Dayalpura, Adjoining Airport Road, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab through its Managing Director.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), Registered Office: PSPCL, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, Punjab through its Chairman /Authorized Signatory.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), Office of the Assistant Engineer, Subdivision Zirakpur at Old MC Office Building, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab through its authorized person.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:      Complainant in person.

                   Shri Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Shri Harnek Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 and 3.  

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed as under:-  

1. To direct OP No.1 to issue the requisite NOC to the complainant with regard to the electricity connection.
2. To direct the OPs No.2 and 3 to issue the electricity connection in the flat of the complainant with immediate effect.
3. To direct OP No.1 to pay interest, on account of delay in possession, at the prescribed rate of interest (SBI highest MCLR plus 2%) i.e. 10.6% per annum on the whole of the amount paid by the complainant to OP No.1 from the due date of handing over the possession i.e. September 2019 till its actual possession being handed over to the complainant i.e. up to the date on which electricity connection is provided in the flat.
4. To direct the OPs, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses
5. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant in the year 2018 had approached the OP No.1 and showed her willingness to purchase a residential property in its project named Riverdale Aerovista situated at Village Dyalpura, Adjoining Aerocity, 200 Feet Airport Road, Mohali and booked a Flat bearing No. 105-C measuring 1410 square feet in it, for a total sale consideration of Rs.44,40,000/- vide allotment letter no105-C dated 04.07.2019. OP No.1 told the complainant that it will provide the fully furnished flat to the complainant. It was also told by the OP No.1 to the complainant that the construction is already going in full swing and it will hand-over the possession of the complete furnished flat by September 2019. Thereafter, an agreement had also been executed between the parties on 04.07.2019. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the agreement, it has been agreed by the  OP No.1 that the possession of the flat will be given to the complainant by September 2019. OP No.1 had clearly mentioned in Para No.7.2 of the Buyer Agreement, that "the promotor agrees and undertakes to indemnify the allottee (the complainant herein) in case of failure of fulfilment of any of the provisions, formalities, documentation on the part of the promoter". Similarly, it has also been mentioned and agreed by the  OP No.1 in Para No. 10 of the Buyer Agreement that "It is agreed that in case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the Promoter as per the agreement of sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the Promoter within a period of five years by the Allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the Promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days and in the event of Promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved Allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under the Act". Similarly, it has also been agreed by the OP No.1 in Para No.17 that "The Promoter has assured the Allottees that the project in entirety is in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 (Punjab Act No.13 of 1995). The Promoter showing compliance of various laws/ regulations as applicable in development of the herein mentioned project called "Riverdale Aerovista".
3.           OP No.1 on the same day had also got the signatures of the complainant on an Addendum Agreement which was also executed by the OP No.1 on the very same day i.e. 04.07.2019 and when the complainant apprised for the same, to which the OP No.1 told the complainant that the said document is just a formality. The OP No.1 had not even allowed the complainant to go through the contents of the same. The complainant in a bonafide belief could not smell the foul play on the part of the OP No.1 and had signed the same in good faith. The complainant had been paying all the instalments diligently as and when demanded by OP No.1 and had not made any default in the payments demanded by the  OP No.1 and till September 2019, the complainant had almost paid 95% amount of the cost of the flat i.e. Rs.42,18,000/- (+GST) but the complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the  OP No.1 in spite of taking the huge amount from the complainant had failed to handover the possession of the furnished flat to the complainant within the stipulated period i.e. by September 2019 in spite of the assurances given by them. When the complainant asked for the reason of the delay in handing over the possession of the flat, the OP No.1 has not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant and started giving lame excuses. In the month of February 2020, the complainant visited the site to verify the situation of the flat and met one new representative of the OP No.1 namely Atinder Singh. On reaching there, she was surprised to see that the OP No.1 had not removed the defects in the flat despite giving sufficient time of five months by the complainant. Feeling aggrieved by the act and conduct of the  OP No.1, the complainant on 09.03.2020 had wrote an e-mail to OP No.1 wherein the complainant had clearly mentioned about the defects which have not been removed in the flat and the defects were still there as below i.e.Roof floor have cracks; Cracks seen on the wall; Kitchen cabinets, kitchen wall tiles and chimney are not of the Same material as shown in the sample flat;  Shora on the wall is there in all the rooms and also on the wall of stairs going upward to the roof; There is leakage of rain water on roof. (Kitchen Side). A request for removal of all the defects was also made by the complainant. The complainant was surprised that the OP No.1 in spite of the receipt of the e-mail had not given any reply to the complainant. Thereafter, another e-mail was sent by the complainant on 11.03.2020 and on 16.04.2020. During this time, there was a complete lockdown in the entire nation due to COVID-19 Pandemic and the OP No.1 in order to save their skin and taking the advantage of the lockdown showed their inability to complete the work. The  OP No.1 has not appreciated the fact that the lockdown was imposed in March 2020 and the possession of the flat was ought to be given to the complainant in September 2019 and from September 2019 till March 2020, they have devasted approximately 7 months of the complainant and had not removed the defects in the flat. Till the month of April 2021, the  OP No.1 had not completed the defects in the flat in question but despite this, they have started forcing the complainant to make the remaining payment of the said flat and sent a detail of the payment of Rs.7,61,310/- to the complainant vide demand letter dated 23.11.2020. On perusing the same, the complainant was shocked to see that the demand of the said amount on the part of the OP No.1 is totally illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable because the total sale consideration of the flat has been settled at Rs.44,40,000/- and the complainant had already paid Rs.42,18,000/- to  OP No.1 and an amount of Rs.2,80,200/- incl. GST only was due and outstanding towards the complainant. From April 2020 onwards, the complainant many times wrote e-mails to the  OP No.1 and had also visited the site despite having COVID-19 restrictions with the hope that the defects in the flat of the complainant will be removed by the  OP No.1 but she was surprised to see that the  OP No.1 did not adhere to the request of the complainant and rather started threatening the complainant to clear all the pending dues otherwise, they will left with no other option rather than taking legal action against the complainant. Such act on the part of the  OP No.1 clearly proves the fact that the  OP No.1 is indulged in unfair trade practices and also deficient in rendering services because it has not removed the defects in the flat of the complainant and had rather started demanding the dues from the complainant. Complainant approached the OP No.1 to give the detail of the amount of Rs.7,61,310, being demanded by them but they did not give any satisfactory reply. After long persuasions, the OP No.1 agreed for an amount of Rs.3,07,110/- and due to the constant pressure from the OP No.1, the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.3,07,110/- to it by way of demand draft dated 18.03.2021 with the hope that the OP No.1 will perform its part of contract and will remove the defects in the flat of the complainant. Even after receiving the amount of Rs 3,07,110/- the OP No.1 did not give the possession to the complainant and in the month of April, 2021 itself raised the demand of the maintenance amount and the complainant under the forced and compelling circumstances had also paid an amount of Rs.34,940/- including GST @ 18% to the OP No.1 on account of the one- year advance maintenance charges from 01.05.2021 to 30.04.2022 and in this regard, the  OP No.1 had also issued the Receipt No.107 dated 28.04.2021 in favour of the complainant thereby acknowledging the receipt of the said amount of Rs. 34,940/- on account of one year maintenance charges. After making the entire payment, the OP No.1 had issued the Certificate of Possession to the complainant against the flat purchased by her on 28.04.2021. Along-with this, the OP No.1 had also issued the No Dues Certificate to the complainant on the same day i.e. 28.04.2021 and had also given the details of the luxurious amenities being given to the complainant. At the time of handing of the Certificate of Possession of the flat in question, the OP No.1 had also issued a Key Handover Form to the complainant, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that the OP No.1 had provided 06 keys of the doors of the rooms and 03 keys of the main door, in total 09 keys to the complainant and 02 keys of the store room were still lying pending. Copy of the Key Handover Form is duly signed by Shri Amitabh Saini, a worker of OP No.1, however, the keys of the storeroom and also the possession of the storeroom has not been handed over to the complainant as the OP No.1 had kept their scrap and some material in the said store and had illegally retained possession of the same with them without any default at the end of the complainant. In the month of June, 2021, the OP No.1 had executed the sale deed of the above said flat in favour of the complainant as the complainant had already paid the full and final sale consideration amount to the OP No.1. In spite of execution of the sale deed the OP No.1 had not removed the defects in the house of the complainant and moreover, had not handed over the keys of the storeroom to the complainant. The complainant after performing the rituals in her house had planned to shift to her flat in the month of December, 2022 and prior to that, the complainant approached the OPs No.2 and 3 to issue the Electricity Connection in her name in the flat in question, but the complainant was shocked and surprised to see that OP No.3 had refused to entertain the said request of the complainant and told the complainant that the  OP No.1 had not submitted the NOC with OP No.3  and in the absence of the NOC, the electricity connection in the flat of the complainant will not be issued. Since all the efforts made by the complainant before the  OPs No.2 and 3  for the grant of electricity connection in her name have gone futile as they have clearly refused to entertain the request of the complainant, at that time, the complainant immediately approached the OP No.1 and told them about the same and requested them to provide the documents/NOC as demanded for issuance of electricity connection in the name of the complainant, but the complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the OP No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply to the grievance of the complainant and had started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also informed the OP No.1 that the electricity is the basic requirement and without electricity it is not possible to shift to the flat. In the month of February 2023, the complainant had also received a letter from the OPs No.2 and 3, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the application of the complainant is not considered as OP No.1 has not taken the NOC from the department. After getting the said letter from the  OPs No.2 and 3 , the complainant immediately approached the  OP No.1 and brought this fact to the notice of the  OP No.1, but the OP No.1 in spite of fact that they are at fault, had not done anything in this regard and had not provided the documents as desired by the OPs No.2 and 3 for considering the legitimate request of the complainant for issuance of the electricity connection in the name of the complainant, rather told the complainant to visit the helpdesk of the  OP No.1. When the complainant discussed the matter with the officials of the OPs No.2 and 3 , she was informed that there is no such helpdesk of the  OPs No.2 and 3  inside the premises of the  OP No.1. Moreover, one time club charges of Rs.30,000/- plus GST was taken by the OP No.1 but it is demanding the yearly charges also for the same which is totally illegal and unfair. The complainant also requested the officials of the OP No.1 namely Shri Amitabh Saini to complete/remove all the defects which were still in the house of the complainant as they had not removed the defects and had also not handed over the keys of the store to the complainant. Some work out of the pending works done on 06.03.2023 and 15.03.2023 and store key handed over on 15.03.2023. However still some work is pending. Thereafter, an e-mail in this regard was also sent by the complainant to the OP No.1 on 20.03.2023. OP No.1 has duly replied to the said e-mail on 21.03.2023 wherein it has been clearly mentioned held by the OP No.1 that due to new notification by Punjab Govt., there are some new requirement from their end which have been completed and due to this process, it will take time. They have also denied their liability of installing the electricity meter by saying that it is not the responsibility of the builder at all as per the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. OP No.1 had to deliver the possession of the furnished flat to the complainant in September 2019. Apart from this, the complainant is also paying the interest to the bank as well as the monthly instalment of the flat amounting to Rs. 30508/-, from her own pocket for the flat which has not been delivered to the complainant for the last more than 3 years as the OP No.1 has failed to remove the defects in the flat and has devastated more than 3 years of the complainant and had made the complainant suffer for more than 3 years. The complainant being a lady is not aware of the technicalities of law and is also not aware of the exact documents required by the OPs No.2 &3 while issuing the electricity connection in the name of the complainant and on the other hand, it is the OP No.1 is not bothering about the repeated requests and reminders made by the complainant and is not providing the requisite NOC as desired by the OPs No.2 and 3. Hence, the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; present complaint has been filed without any authority and the complainants herein have no locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint; the present complaint has been filed while concealing material facts and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed on this score only; the present complaint is nothing but an abuse to the process of law; the complainant has, in order to mislead this Commission to file the present complaint, misused the provisions of Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; the complainant approached the  OP No.1  and submitted her application dated 24.04.2019 with the address proof of being a resident of House No. 2220-A, SBI Colony, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh and accordingly, OP No.1 issued the allotment letter dated 04.07.2019 in favour of the complainant on the same very address the complainant also entered into the Agreement to sell dated 04.07.2019 with the same very address details; even the sale deed dated 16.06.2021 which is the intervening date for the completion of the sale transaction between the complainant and OP No.1 has been executed by the OP on the address as disclosed and confirmed by the complainant to be at Chandigarh; as on date, there remain no averment or allegation on the part of the complainant that she ever disclosed her change in address to OP No.1; however, now in order to file and maintain the present complaint in Ambala just to mislead this Commission, the complainant has got an affidavit filed from one Usha Khanna who allegedly claims the complainant to be her sister-in-law that the complainant has been residing with her at her address being House No.121, Sector C, Defence Colony, Boh Road, District Ambala, Haryana, since 01.10.2019. It has been stated that the complainant got allotted the flat in question in the month of July, 2019 and thereafter all the communications have been made with her on the said address of Chandigarh which are duly being served upon the complainant and the complainant has been acting/reacting upon such communication. A bare perusal of clause 27 of the Buyer Agreement (Exhibit C-2) divulges that it was the incumbent duty upon both the parties to the inform each other of any change in address subsequent to the execution of the said agreement by Registered Post alongwith a proof thereof which is valid with the government agency(ies). Accordingly, for the purposes of provision of Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the address on which the Buyer's Agreement was executed and subsequently the Sale Deed was executed in the year 2021, can only be treated to be the address where the complainant resides. It seems that in order to misuse the provisions of Section 34, the complainant has manipulated the address of Ambala, otherwise, if the address at Chandigarh was left by her, neither she submitted any intimation to OP No.1 nor has she submitted her new address proof. It seems that the complainant is trying to defraud this  Commission. However, if any deficiency against OP No.1 is even considered for the sake of argument, the cause of action could have been considered to be arisen in Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and accordingly, the present complaint should have been filed in compliance of Section 34(2)(a), (b) & (c) respectively. Thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed for the want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the project was complete in all respect at the time of allotment in favour of the complainant and only the final finishing work was going on in the outer periphery of the project, thus, accordingly, the date of handing over of the possession of the flat in question was duly put in the said agreement as September, 2019. As per the terms of the agreement to sell, the complainant was required to make the payment of the sale consideration as per the construction link payment schedule and accordingly, the OPs raised the demands of the outstanding amount of the sale consideration. The complainant had under the arrangement made by herself, on the receipt of the said demand, she requested the AGM of her bank to release the amount of the sale consideration. Upon execution of the Tripartite Agreement dated 23.08.2019, the said payment was released. Accordingly, the possession of the flat in question was offered to the complainant vide the letter dated 12.09.2019. In the said offer of possession, OP No.1 duly clarified that since the final coat of the paint is to be put once the complete sale consideration payable at the time of possession is paid by the complainant and all the other formalities are completed in all respect. It is further worthwhile mentioning here that the paint has a tendency to fade and in case the units are painted and the possession is delayed due to any reason whatsoever, it loses its freshness and the allottees are not able to experience the same which everyone relishes while buying a new house/flat. Moreover, the terms of the agreement to sell duly envisages that the payment of the sale consideration payable at the time of possession was a condition for possession handing over. The competent authority issued the completion certificate to the project vide their letter dated 18.10.2019. However, till then, inspite of due service of the said offer of possession on the complainant, she did not turn up to either clear the outstanding amount of the sale consideration or to take the possession by completing the possession formalities. Faced with such situation, OP No.1 issued a letter dated 28.12.2019 to the complainant, Thereafter, OP No.1 had been waiting for the complainant to take possession of the flat in question, but all in vain. In the meantime, the world-vide outbreak of Covid-19 virus put the society stand still and neither any movement was facilitated nor any work could be undertaken. Accordingly, OP No.1 also, while understanding the situation, did not follow the complainant but the complainant always remained in touch with the officials of OP No.1 and always assured that she will come to take possession of the flat in question once the situation becomes normal. The complainant always tried to dilute the matter towards dispute and on any and every aspect, she starting threatening the officials of the OP No.1, just to delay the possession of the flat. The complainant, vide her various emails, started raising issues which were actually not in existence i.e., height of the hanging rods, comparison of the flat with the sample flat etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant was always duly described that since the sample flat is always indicative in nature and the same is prepared just to provide a glimpse to the visitors as to what the flat shall look like after putting in the furniture and fixtures. But the complainant found this as a tool to mount pressure on the OP No.1. OP No.1 duly issued the email dated 17.04.2020 in which it was stated that all her concerns were duly taken up and resolved. Despite having issued the above email, the complainant did not stop. OP No.1 still issued an email dated 28.07.2020 in which it was again asserted that the flat in question is ready for possession since long and she should come forward to take the possession. When the complainant still did not come forward to take the possession, the OP No.1 wrote email dated 19.08.2020 in which this particular act and conduct of the complainant was pointed out, but all in vain. Upon being pointed out her true colors, the complainant got furious and started raising unwanted allegations on the  OP No.1, whereas the  OP No.1 decided to not to give her undue issues hype and strict to the terms of the sale. But the complainant, while taking undue benefit of this situation, started creating piles of issues. However, later it was disclosed by her that actually she was not interested to take possession as it could have incurred her the maintenance charges which she otherwise is responsible to make payment. The complainant was also apprised about the fact that she will be requiring to submit the application to the electricity department for release of electricity connection and thus, she should complete the possession formalities at the earliest possible, but in vain. OP No.1 issued the reminders dated 08.01.2021, 30.01.2021 calling upon the complainant to clear the outstanding dues, but in vain. Failed to receive any positive response, the OP No.1 issued the show cause notice to terminate the allotment dated 26.02.2021. Thereafter, the matter was discussed between the parties and while having a sympathetic view towards the complainant, the total outstanding amount was reduced to Rs.3,07,110/- vide letter dated 09.03.2021 and the said letter was duly received by the complainant under her own signatures. Upon due deliberation on this hefty episode, the OP No.1 handed over the flat in question to the complainant on 28.04.2021. However, since the complainant had been time and again raising various issues about paint, plaster etc. so some of the goods were kept in the store of the complainant and accordingly, she was requested to grant some time to shift the same. Having duly satisfied, the complainant also got the sale deed executed in her favour on 16.06.2021 which was duly registered in her favour bearing vasika number 2021-22/13/1/2851 dated 18.06.2021 before the Sub- registrar, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab. Despite having executed sale deed in her favour, the complainant chose not to apply for the electricity connection for the flat in question, due to the reason best known to her. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant, even at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, did not submit any approved address proof which could establish on record that her residential address has been changed and accordingly, she got the sale deed executed and registered having been her residential address to be at Chandigarh i.e., the same as was mentioned in the allotment letter. Having faced with such like situation where the complainant herself is playing upon the OP No.1 as per her whims, the OP No.1 tried to not to unnecessarily create any issue and kept on fulfilling the undue demands of the complainant only to not to spoil the customer relationship and that too with a lady who claims herself helpless, but every time rakes up false and frivolous claims against the OP No.1. The complainant very well having knowledge that the OP No.1 has assigned the work of maintenance to a maintenance agency named Shivam Enterprises who is taking care of the work of maintenance in the project. Further the work of maintenance costs on the higher side and accordingly, the said maintenance agency raises the particular maintenance charges from the respective allottees. The said agency has even issued the Show Cause Notice dated 22.05.2023 for the withdrawal of the maintenance services pertaining to the unit sold to the complainant. The complainant first of all herself delayed the completion of the possession formalities for about 18 months under the garb of alleged defects in the flat in question just to avoid the maintenance charges. Further when the possession was taken in the month of April, 2021 and sale deed was registered in the month of June, 2021, she did not submit the documents for the electricity connection and kept on raising the allegations on the OP No.1. However, the OP No.1, apart from handing over the possession of the flats to its respective allottees, got the electricity connections released in their favour. This fact can be visible from the fact that the flat just beneath the flat of the complainant was regularly paying electricity bill in the year 2020. A copy of the electricity bill issued in the month of November 2020 for Flat No.105-B. Neither the electricity connection nor the deficient workmanship was the actual reason for delay in possession of the flat in question. The project was duly completed in the month of October 2019 and the competent authority appropriately issued the completion certificate in this regard. Other allottees even in the building of the complainant took the possession and got the electricity connections issued in their respective favour and they were happily using the same. OP No.1 even vide its email dated 14.12.2022 duly apprised the complainant that the requirement of the NOC was newly introduced by the PSPCL and earlier other allottees duly got their electricity connections without NOC, but all in vain. OP No.1 has time and again requested the complainant that the building if kept closed can develop certain conditions which could be avoided if the building is put to air exposure and cleanliness. If a new building is kept closed for some time, it could demolish on its own if not maintained properly and the same is dangerous for other occupants of the same. But the complainant instead of shifting to the flat, to avoid payment of the maintenance charges, kept on raising unwanted and untenable allegations against the OP No.1, which does not have legs to stand.. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
5.           Upon notice, OPs No.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version wherein they  raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint against the Ops No.2 &3; jurisdiction of this Commission stands ousted as the Electricity Act 2003; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the necessary parties ; the complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands and she has suppressed material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the electricity connections for developer/ builders/ societies of residents/ occupier shall submit the complete lay out plan of the electrical network proposed to be erected in the colony and other documents prescribed by the licensee along with the processing fee as per schedule of general charges and obtain the preliminary NOC from the licensee. The NOC will be issued after the submitted all requirements. But in this case OP No.1 had failed to get the NOC from the department so the electricity   connection in the premises will not be issued by the department as per rule and regulation of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(PSPCL). OP No.1 did not provide all the relevant documents for NOC for the electricity connection and OP no.1 had failed to get the NOC from the department so the electricity connection in the premises will not be issued by the department as per rule and regulation of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL). Because OP No.1 did not get the NOC under Section 36 of Electricity supply instruction manual 2018 (ESIM) so the electricity connection will not be issued at the premises of the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
6.           Complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Kamal Jit Gupta son of Ravinder Kumar Gupta, Authorized Signatory of OP No.1-M/s Manglam Infra, having its office at Dyalpura Adjoining Aerocity, 200ft. Airport Road, Mohali, Punjab as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents-Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-2/22 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 tendered affidavit of Er.Hemant Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division Commercial, Zirakpur, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, SAS Mohali Punjab as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith document-Annexure OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.
7.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 and have also carefully gone through the case file
8.           Complainant has submitted that by neither delivering actual physical possession of the flat in question complete in all respects nor providing electricity in the said flat, despite delivery of possession of the said flat and execution of sale deed, which had been taken under compelling circumstance, the OPs are deficient in providing service and guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.
9.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the objections and contentions raised in the written version submitted that legal and valid possession of the flat in question has been delivered to the complainant and thereafter sale deed has also been executed. He further submitted that electricity has already been provided at the project site but the complainant failed to take connection from the PSPCL as required under the buyers’ agreement   
10.           Learned counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 also, while reiterating the  objections and contentions raised in the written version submitted that because OP No.1 did not get the NOC under section 36 of Electricity supply instruction manual 2018 (ESIM) therefore, the electricity connection cannot be issued at the premises of the complainant.
11.           First coming to objection taken with regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Commission it may be stated here that from the telephone Bill Annexure C-14 having been issued by BSNL, it is proved that the complainant is residing at House No.121, Sector C, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt., Haryana. This fact further got fortified from the affidavit filed by one Usha Khanna to the effect that the complainant (her sister-in-law) has been residing with her at her House No.121, Sector C, Defence Colony, Boh Road, District Ambala, Haryana, since 01.10.2019. Under these circumstances, this Commission at Ambala has jurisdiction to decide this complaint and objection taken stands rejected.
12.           As far as objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, because admittedly the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.44,40,000/- as sale consideration of the flat alongwith Rs.1,77,700/- as stamp duty charges as evident from sale deed Annexure C-11, total of which is below Rs.50 lacs therefore this Commission is vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint.
13.           As per Clause 7.1 of the buyer’s agreement, Annexure C-2, that possession of the flat in question complete in all respects was to be delivered latest by September 2019 but it has been delivered only on 28.04.2021, as is evident from certificate of possession Annexure C-9 and sale deed has been executed on 16.06.2021, Annexure C-11. In our considered view from the contents of written version filed by the OP No.1, it can be judged that delay in delivery of possession was because of the reason that the flat was not ready and it suffered various defects. Even from the contents of email written by OP No.1 duly issued by it on 17.04.2020, Annexure OP1/9 it has been stated that all concerns of the complainant has been duly taken up and resolved which means that the complainant had raised issues qua non completion of work in her flat, after receiving offer of possession letter dated 25.10.2019, Annexure OP1/11 (colly). OP No.1 has relied upon completion certificate to the project issued by Municipal Council, Annexure OP-1/8 dated 18.10.2019, but it is clearly mentioned in para no.2 of this certificate that OP No.1 is bound to take NOC from all the departments. Wherein, in the present case, there is a letter dated 01.02.2023, Annexure C-12  issued by the PSPCL/OPs No.2 and 3 whereby it  has been informed to the complainant by OPs No.2 and 3 that OP No.1 electricity connection cannot be given to the project in question, as OP No.1 has not obtained NOC from the Electricity Department. In this view of the matter, no help can be obtained by OP No.1 from the completion certificate. Thus, it is held that offer of possession letter dated 25.10.2019, Annexure OP-1/11 colly. cannot be termed as valid offer. 
14.           It may be stated here that  because admittedly possession of the unit in question has been delivered to the complainant on 28.04.2021, Annexure C-9 and sale deed has also been executed on 16.06.2021, Annexure C-11 therefore following question arises for adjudication in this complaint now:-
    1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of her flat?
    2. Whether the complainant herself is liable to apply for electricity connection qua the flat in question or the OP No.1 is liable to get the same for the complainant from OPs No.2 and 3?
    3. Whether the OP NO.1 is liable to get removed the defects in the flat in question or not?
15.           First regarding the question, as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of her flat, it may be stated here that it has been clearly committed by OP No.1 by way of clause 7.1 of the agreement, Annexure C-2, that possession of the flat in question complete in all respects was to be delivered latest by September 2019. Yet, it is an admitted fact that possession of the flat in question has been delivered to the complainant only on 28.04.2021, Annexure C-9 and sale deed has also been executed on 16.06.2021, Annexure C-11. There is delay of about 17 months. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled for delayed compensation from September 2019 to 28.04.2021. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil  Appeal  No.11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 and DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of possession. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has awarded interest @9% p.a for period of delay in delivery of possession to the consumer.  In view of ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the complainant is also held entitled for interest @9% p.a. on the sale consideration qua the flat in question from September 2019 to 28.04.2021.
16.           Now coming to question whether the complainant herself is liable to apply for electricity connection qua the flat in question or the OP No.1 is liable to get the same for the complainant from OPs No.2 and 3, it may be stated here that it can easily be culled out from clause 7 (vi) of the addendum agreement dated 04.07.2019, Annexure C-3 that the parties have agreed that the complainant is responsible for getting the individual electricity connection from the concerned authorities and the duty of OP No.1 is only to install transformer at the said project and that it shall also arrange the provision of electricity connection to the sub-station for the complex. However, at this juncture, it is very important to mention here that though as per clause no.7 (vi) it was the duty of the complainant to get the individual electricity connection from the concerned authorities, yet, as referred above also there is a letter dated 01.02.2023, Annexure C-12  whereby it  has been informed to the  complainant by OPs No.2 and 3 that OP No.1 electricity connection cannot be given to the project in question, as OP No.1 has not obtained NOC from the Electricity Department. This letter dated 01.02.2023, Annexure C-12 has not been disputed by OP No.1. Thus, it can safely be said that it was on account of default on the part of OP No.1 as it failed to obtain NOC from the Electricity Department that regular electricity supply could not be released qua the project in question and the complainant is unable to obtain regular electricity connection from the department concerned. This act of OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and negligence.  Thus, in this view of the matter also, it is held that possession of the flat was rightly not taken by the complainant on the basis of offer of possession letter and for this the complainant cannot be said to at fault and if she had taken the possession of her flat under compelling circumstances on 28.04.2021 that fact cannot take away her legal rights qua the flat in question. 

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-  

•        OP No.1 shall pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant for her unit with effect from 01.09.2019 to 28.04.2021 within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which after that interest payable on the said amount shall be @10% p.a., instead of 9% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
• OP No.1 shall remove the defects in the flat in question and get NOC from the Electricity Department; install transformer at the said project; arrange the provision of electricity connection to the sub-station for the complex, within the period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, so that thereafter the complainant is able to get electricity connection from the OPs No.2 and 3, failing which OP No.1 shall pay Rs.100/- per day to the complainant till realization.
• OP No.1 shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and negligence, mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which these amounts shall be payable alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
• OPs No.2 and 3 on receipt of NOC from the complainant shall release electricity connection to the complainant qua the flat in question on receipt of requisite statutory charges, if any, within the period of 45 days.

Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

 Announced:- 03.06.2024