State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tdi Infratech Ltd. vs Sawraj Singh Anand on 9 August, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.131 of 2024
Date of institution : 09.03.2024
Reserved On : 11.07.2024
Date of decision : 09.08.2024
M/s TDI Infratech Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Taneja Developers and
Infrastructure Limited), Registered Office: SCO 51-52, Sector 118, TDI
City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Director namely Ravinder Kumar
Taneja.
....Appellant/OP
Versus
1. Swaraj Singh Anand S/o Sardar Singh Anand;
2. Mrs. Satinder Anand W/o Swaraj Singh Anand;
Both residents of House No.267, TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali
and now at C-115, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.
....Respondents/Complainants
2) First Appeal No.126 of 2024
Date of institution : 08.03.2024
Reserved On : 11.07.2024
Date of decision : 09.08.2024
1. Swaraj Singh Anand son of Sardar Singh Anand;
2. Mrs. Satinder Anand W/o Swaraj Singh Anand;
Both residents of House No.267, TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali
and now at C-115, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.
Ph. No.99133-57909
Email:[email protected]
....Appellants/Complainants
Versus
First Appeal No.131 of 2024 2
M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., Registered Office: SCO
51-52, Sector 118, TDI City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its
MD/Director namely Ravinder Kumar Taneja.
Ph. No.8558807770
Email: [email protected]
....Respondent/OP
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar
(Mohali).
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present (FA No.131 of 2024):-
For the Appellant : Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate
For the Respondents : Sh. Swaraj Singh Anand, in Person.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
This order of ours shall dispose off two Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.131 of 2024 and First Appeal No.126 of 2024, as the same have been filed against the same order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, First Appeal No.131 of 2024 3 S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (in short, "the District Commission"). However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.131 of 2024.
2. First Appeal No.131 of 2024 has been filed by the Appellant/OP under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Commission, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed by issuing directions to the OP to pay compensation of ₹5 lac for not providing the promised facilities along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 10.09.2020 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the free certified copy of the order, failing which the OP was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount till its realization. Further, an amount of ₹75,000/- was awarded as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant and ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondents/Complainants in the Complaint filed by them before the District Commission are that they were allotted plot No.267 measuring 276.67 sq.yds. at TDI City, Sector 118, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali by the OP vide allotment letter dated 20.09.2011. The Sale Deed of said plot First Appeal No.131 of 2024 4 was executed on 28.05.2012. However, on the asking of the OP, the Maintenance Agreement was executed between the Complainants and M/s TDI Facility & Maintenance on 21.09.2011. As per the Sale agreement entered into between the parties, the OP was to provide 40 feet wide road and there was also provision of a park in front of the plot of the Complainants, as the said area was declared as 'Green Belt' by the OP at the time of allotment. Further, it was promised that the park in front of the said plot was to be provided within a period of 3 months. However, the OP had not purchased the front area of the road and due to this reason, the road in front of the house of the Complainants was very narrow and they were unable even to open the main gate. The Complainants had visited the office of the OP on a number of occasions and narrated their problems, which were being faced by them but nothing was done. Further, it was mentioned that the agent of the OP, who was managing the maintenance, had failed to provide the maintenance and security services. A number of Complaints were made by sending the letters and emails to the OP for providing the agreed facilities and this fact was also admitted by the OP in its reply to one such email. The OP vide letter dated 27.06.2019 had informed the Complainants that the part of the road in front of their plot was proposed for acquisition under the policy of the State Government but there is no sign of any development in the area of their plot and the other promised facilities were also not provided. The First Appeal No.131 of 2024 5 Complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OP to refund the principal amount of ₹91,16,093/- along with interest at the rate of 18% and also the other expenses as mentioned in the Calculation Sheet and also to pay compensation of ₹5 lac for causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants and ₹5 lac for breach of the contract. It was also prayed that any other relief as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.
5. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, the OP appeared before the District Commission and filed written reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised that the Complaint was not maintainable, as the claim sought by the Complainants was ₹3,04,01,473.44, which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission. The Complaint was stated to be barred by limitation, as the Complainants had taken of the plot much earlier on 04.04.2012 and even the Sale Deed was executed on 15.05.2012, whereas the Complaint was filed on 08.09.2020 i.e. after a period of 8 years and 5 months. Further, it was mentioned that the plot was allotted to the Complainant as per the tentative layout plans, which were subject to variations, additions, alterations and modification and no such objection was raised either at the time of taking the possession of the plot or at the time of execution of the Sale Deed of First Appeal No.131 of 2024 6 the plot. Other averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed with costs.
6. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 27.10.2023. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-8 is reproduced as under:
"8. Consequently, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we partly allow the Complaint and direct the OP to pay to the Complainants compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs for non provision of promised facilities, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 10.09.2020 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order. It is further ordered that if the aforesaid amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs is not paid by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order, in that eventuality the OP will pay interest @ 12% per annum on this amount till actual payment. We further direct the OP to pay amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses."
7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Commission, the Appellant/OP has filed First Appeal No.131 of 2024 for setting aside the impugned order, whereas the Complainants have filed First Appeal No.126 for enhancement of the compensation by allowing the Complaint in toto.
8. Mr. Puneet Tuli, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP has submitted that the District Commission has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the stand of the OP taken in its First Appeal No.131 of 2024 7 reply filed before the District Commission. The relief has been granted to the Complainants beyond the pleadings as made in the Complaint. Further, it has been submitted that the Complaint was not maintainable, as the District Commission was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint, as the claim sought by the Complainants in the Complaint as reflected in the calculation sheet was ₹3,04,01,473.44. The Complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, it has been submitted that the Complainants had concealed certain material facts and correct picture was not brought to the notice of the District Commission. The Complaint was also barred by limitation, as the Complainants had already taken the possession of the plot on 04.04.2012, as is clear from Annexure C-21 and the Sale Deed was also executed in their favour. The Complaint was filed after a period of 8 years and 5 months from the date of taking the possession and the controversy involved in the present case had already been decided by this Commission in case i.e. CC No.510 of 2018 titled as Rajiv Singla v. Taneja Developers & Ors., which was decided on 13.07.2010. Further, it has been submitted that the allotment of the Complainants was subject to laws, notifications, rules and regulations as applicable so framed by the competent authorities of the State Government from time to time. The layout plan of the housing project was subject to approval and revision by the competent authority under the Town and Country First Appeal No.131 of 2024 8 Planning Department of the Government and the same was finalized after taking into consideration the various parameters such as contiguity of the project, connectivity of the roads, service plans and development works to be executed therein. As per the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent as well as the agreement so executed with the Govt. of Punjab, the said mega project of the Company was to be developed in contiguity at a single geographical location in the spirit of the Industrial Policy, 2003. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the offer of possession was sent to the Complainants on 01.10.2011 requesting them to clear the outstanding dues towards the plot in dispute but the cheque issued by the Complainants was dishonoured and as such the allotment of the plot was cancelled. However, in view of the harmonious relations, the Company had revoked the cancellation and the possession letter was issued to the Complainants on 04.04.2012. However, no protest was lodged by the Complainant at the time of taking the possession and at the time of execution of the Sale Deed on 15.05.2012. Learned Counsel has further submitted that prior to issuance of the Notification dated 02.09.2014, the OP was not required to get any Completion or Partial Completion Certificate for the project. However, subsequently the OP had obtained the Partial Completion Certificate dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure R-17). It has further been submitted that now the agreed road has been provided and reference to this effect has been made by First Appeal No.131 of 2024 9 latest photographs of the road and the entrance gate of the house of the Complainants (Annexure R-18). At the end, it has been submitted that there is no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OP and all the agreed facilities had been provided to the Complainants and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. 2007 (1) SCT 225 in support of his contentions.
9. Mr. Swaraj Singh, Complainant No.1, while appearing in person, at the very outset has submitted that the OP had failed to provide 40 feet wide road and the park as well as other amenities in front of the plot of the Complainants as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. The Complainants had purchased the plot at very high rates by paying the preferential location charges and other charges. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the layout plan as shown at the time of allotment, the plot of the Complainants was situated on 40 feet wide road and in front of a park, which was to be provided within a period of 3 months. In the allotment letter dated 20.09.2011, it was clearly mentioned that the plot of the Complainant was park facing. Said area was reflected as 'Green Belt' at the time of sale of the plot. However, subsequently the Complainants came to know that the said area was not purchased by the OP and some construction has been raised by some third party. The Complainants First Appeal No.131 of 2024 10 had constructed their house over the plot by spending huge expenses but a narrow road has been provided in front of their house. Due to the said action of the OP, the house of the Complainants is not safe as there is huge rush of vehicles on the narrow road with a lot of noise and nuisance. The house could not be occupied by the Complainants since the year 2014 due to narrow road. The Complainants being senior citizens had purchased the said plot to lead a happy and peaceful life after retirement but their dream had fallen down on account of narrow road and in the absence of the park in front of their house. He has further submitted the Complainants had prayed for the refund of the principal amount of ₹91,16,093/- along with interest at the rate of 18% and also other expenses as mentioned in the Calculation Sheet and also to pay the compensation of ₹5 lac for causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants and ₹5 lac for breach of the contract. However, the District Commission has awarded a meagre compensation while passing the impugned order. Further, it has been submitted that the District Commission had also failed to take into consideration that the OP had received an amount of ₹1,90,211/- i.e. @ 2.5% of the basic sale price of the plot as mentioned in the Final Statement of Account. Since no park was provided, so the said amount was wrongly and illegally received by the OP. All these facts and circumstances have not been taken into consideration by the District Commission while awarding the meagre compensation and as First Appeal No.131 of 2024 11 such the impugned order is liable to be modified and the Appeal filed by the OP is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
11. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainants before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OP, partly allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of the present Appeals by both the parties before this Commission are not in dispute.
12. The OP has raised an objection that the Complaint was time barred, as the possession of the plot was delivered to the Complainants on 04.04.2012 and thereafter the Sale Deed was also executed in their favour on 28.05.2012, whereas the Complaint was filed on 10.09.2020.
13. It is relevant to mention that the Maintenance Agreement (Ex-C-20) was executed on 21.09.2011 between the Complainants and M/s TDI Facilities and Maintenance Ltd., i.e. the sister concern of the OP. As per the terms and conditions of said agreement, said agency was required to provide the required maintenance, which included general watch and ward of the colony, providing the drainage and sewerage connections/its repairs, street lights, repairs and maintenance of roads etc. Admittedly, the OP had failed to provide First Appeal No.131 of 2024 12 the promised 40 feet wide road in front of the Complainants and rather a narrow road was provided as shown in the photographs produced by them on record. Even the park was not provided in front of their plot despite obtaining the Preferential Location Charges from the Complainants. The Complainants had been sending a number of emails and letters to the OP for providing 40 feet wide road and park as agreed but to no effect. Even no 'Completion Certificate' was obtained by the OP from the competent authority as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 and only a 'Partial Completion Certificate' was obtained and that too on compliance of certain terms and conditions as mentioned therein. The OP has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to show that it had complied those terms and conditions in letter and spirit. Therefore, it was a continuous cause of action in favour of the Complainants and it cannot be said that the Complaint was barred by limitation.
14. The other plea taken by the OP was that Complaint was not maintainable, as the claim sought by the Complainants was ₹3,04,01,473.44, which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission. It is relevant to mention that the Complaint was filed on 10.09.2020 i.e. after coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per provisions of said Act, the paid up value of the services is to be taken into consideration and not the total value First Appeal No.131 of 2024 13 along with interest, compensation etc. as claimed in the Complaint. Said amount as mentioned in the Calculation Sheet was not the total paid up amount but it includes interest, construction cost, depreciation value, house rent, compensation etc. Therefore, there is no substance in the said plea of the Counsel for the OP.
15. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the Complainants were allotted plot No.267 measuring 276.66 sq.yds. in the project of the OP i.e. 'TDI City' in Sector 117-119, Mohali, Punjab, vide allotment letter dated 20.09.2011 (Ex.C-3). It was specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that the said plot was park facing. Possession of the said plot was offered to the Complainants and they had taken the same vide Possession Letter dated 04.04.2012 (Ex.C-21) and thereafter, the Sale Deed was also executed in favour of the Complainants on 28.05.2012, wherein it was mentioned that there would be 40 feet wide road in front of the plot of the Complainants.
16. The grievance of the Complainants is that that the OP had failed to fulfil their promise to provide 40 feet wide road and the park in front of their plot and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the Allotment Letter and the Sale Deed.
17. The Complainants had produced on record certain photographs to show that a very narrow road had been provided in front of their plot and only one car can pass thereon. The land First Appeal No.131 of 2024 14 earmarked for the park was sold to some third party and there is no convincing rebuttal to this fact on the part of the OP. The Complainants had also raised the construction over the plot but by not providing 40 feet road and park in front of their house, the OP had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the Sale Deed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6239 of 2019 (Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Ltd.), decided vide order dated 24.08.2020 had held the builder/promoter liable for not providing the agreed facilities/amenities. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"43. In other words, what the developer holds out as a defence is that though there has been a failure on their part to provide the amenities, the flat buyers have the benefit of facilities in the surrounding area which has become urbanised. We cannot agree with this line of submissions. The reply of the developer seeks to explain the failure to construct the facilities on the ground that the "existing population cannot sustain these facilities" - a school, commercial complex and health care facilities. This is a case involving an experienced developer who knew the nature of the representation which was being held out to the flat purchasers. Developers sell dreams to home buyers. Implicit in their representations is that the facilities which will be developed by the developer will provide convenience of living and a certain lifestyle based on the existence of those amenities. Having sold the flats, the developer may find it economically unviable to provide the amenities. The flat purchasers cannot be left in the lurch or, as in the present case, be told that the absence of facilities which were to be provided by the developer is compensated by other amenities which are available in the area. The developer must First Appeal No.131 of 2024 15 be held accountable to its representation. A flat purchaser who invests in a flat does so on an assessment of its potential. The amenities which the builder has committed to provide impinge on the quality of life for the families of purchasers and the potential for appreciation in the value of the flat. The representation held out by the developer cannot be dismissed as chaff. True, in a situation such as the present it may be difficult for the court to quantify the exact nature of the compensation that should be provided to the flat buyers. The general appreciation in land values results in an increase in the value of the investment made by the buyers. Difficulties in determining the measure of compensation cannot however dilute the liability to pay. A developer who has breached a clear representation which has been made to the buyers of the amenities which will be provided to them should be held accountable to the process of law. To allow the developer to escape their obligation would put a premium on false assurances and representations made to the flat purchasers. Hence, in factoring in the compensation which should be provided to the flat buyers who are concerned in the present batch of Appeals, we would necessarily have to bear this issue in mind."
18. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the OP has submitted that the agreed road has been provided as shown in the latest photographs produced along with the written arguments. Although except the photographs, there is no other documentary evidence to prove this fact but even in case it is presumed that the agreed road has been provided but still the fact remains that Complainants had been approaching the OP for providing the agreed 40 feet wide road and park in front of their house since the date of allotment i.e. 20.09.2011 i.e. for a long period of 13 years. The OP had failed to provide the agreed road and park and there no cogent and First Appeal No.131 of 2024 16 convincing explanation has been given for breaching the terms and condition of the allotment letter and the Sale Deed as well as the Maintenance Agreement for this long period. The 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OP is writ large in the present case.
19. The OP has also taken a stand that the plot was allotted to the Complainants as per the tentative layout plans, which were subject to variations, additions, alterations and modification. However, even then the OP cannot be absolved from its responsibility in not providing 40 feet wide road and the park in front of the plot of the Complainants as the provision of 40 feet wide road and the park was specifically mentioned in the contract executed between the parties. The so called variations, additions, alterations/modification could be made only with regard to the size and location of the plot and no interference could have been made with regard to the location and size of the road and park, which were agreed at the time of allotment and specifically when certain Preferential Location Charges (PLC) were received by the OP from the Complainants.
20. The OP had received an amount of ₹1,90,210/- towards PLC as is evident from the Final Statement of Account as produced on record. Since the promised park has not been provided nor 40 feet road was provided for a long period, so the OP has no right to retain the said amount of ₹1,90,210/- as received by it towards PLC, as the First Appeal No.131 of 2024 17 purpose of paying huge amount had been frustrated by not providing the park and the agreed sized road in front of the plot of the complainant for a long period. We are well aware that the prayer for refund of PLC charges has not specifically been made in the Complaint but it has been prayed by the Complainants that any other relief as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded. The said relief flows from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as due to the sheer 'unfair trade practice' adopted by the OPs by not providing the promised facilities. Therefore, the OP is liable to refund the said amount along with interest.
21. The Complainants had also filed the Appeal while praying that the Complaint be allowed in toto and the entire amount of sale consideration as well construction costs etc. be refunded along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and had also prayed for awarding the compensation of ₹5 lac for causing mental agony and harassment and ₹5 lac for breaching the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the prayer of the Complainants for refund of the sale price of the plot along with construction charges cannot be allowed, as the construction had been raised by the Complainants but the OP is certainly liable to pay adequate compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainants as well as for breaching the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the Sale First Appeal No.131 of 2024 18 Deed. The District Commission has awarded the compensation of ₹5 lac along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for not providing the promised facilities but the compensation of ₹75,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainants is not adequate for compensating the Complainants for the immense mental agony and harassment as suffered during a long period of 13 years since the date of allotment.
22. In the case Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. Further in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:
"6...The word 'compensation' is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done."
8...... No hard and fast rule can be laid down, however a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury both mental and physical."
First Appeal No.131 of 2024 19
23. In another case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"16..... Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation."
24. In view of the above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and also the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that the OP had failed to provide the promised/agreed park and 40 feet wide road in front of the plot of the Complainant for a longer period without any justification. It amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the Sale Deed. The Consumer Protection Act is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the Act cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The District Commission has not awarded sufficient/ adequate compensation keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the mental agony and harassment as suffered by the Complainants for a longer period. Therefore, the impugned order is First Appeal No.131 of 2024 20 liable to be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Commission. The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the OP are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. Accordingly, the First Appeal No.131 of 2024 filed by the OP is dismissed and the First Appeal No.126 of 2024 filed by the Complainants is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Commission is modified to the extent that the OP shall pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/- (in place of ₹75,000/- as awarded by the District Commission) for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainants. The OP shall also refund the amount of ₹1,90,210/- (received by it towards Preferential Location Charges) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt thereof till its realization. Rest of the impugned order is upheld.
26. The compliance of the order shall be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
27. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
28. In First Appeal No.131 of 2024, the Appellant/OP had deposited a sum of ₹4,28,349/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Said First Appeal No.131 of 2024 21 amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The Respondents/Complainants may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
29. The Appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER August 09, 2024.
(Gurmeet S)