State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Umesh Ahuja vs M/S Emaar Mgf Land Private Ltd., on 10 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 09 of 2013 Date of Institution : 19.02.2013 Date of Decision : 10.05.2013 Umesh Ahuja, s/o Harbans Lal Ahuja, r/o GH 80, Flat No.18, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana). Complainant V e r s u s M/s Emaar MGF Land Private Ltd., through its Managing Director, 1st Floor, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, .... Opposite Party Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.
Rajiv K. Bhatia, Advocate for the Opposite Party.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.), PRESIDENT.
The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being professional, has done his Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics, from a reputed College, and was working in a Multinational Company, from 1999 to 2012, in Nigeria. The complainant always dreamt of settling down, in and around Chandigarh, and opening his own consultancy business, by way of self employment. He came across the advertisement of the Opposite Party, wherein, it had actively published, with regard to launching of its designed project, under the name and style Mohali Hills, on first-come-first serve basis, which encompassed residential plots, town houses and luxurious villas, designed by world renowned architect. It was stated that the complainant applied for a commercial unit/shop, measuring 1477 sq. ft. of area, in Central Plaza at Mohali Hills, in Sector 105, SAS Nagar, District Mohali (Punjab), which he intended to use for earning his livelihood, by way of self employment. Alongwith the application form dated 20.02.2008, he deposited an amount of Rs.6,77,710/-, vide cheque no.526031 dated 25.02.2008. At the time of submitting the application form, the complainant was assured by the officials of the Opposite Party, that the possession of commercial space/shop, shall be handed over within 36 months, with a grace period of 3 months, from the date of signing the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, which was signed by him (complainant), on 31.03.2008.
2. It was further stated that the complainant made payment of the first installment, vide cheque no.526032 dated 20.05.2008, in the sum of Rs.4,51,807/-. The payment of second installment of Rs.4,51,807/-, vide cheque no.394577 dated 18.08.2008, was made by the complainant, to the Opposite Party,. It was further stated that, after having parted with a total sum of Rs.15,81,324/-, the complainant requested his brother-in-law, who was residing in India, to visit the site, and ensure, as to whether, any progress in construction work, was going on or not. It was further stated that, the brother-in-law of the complainant, after visiting the site, informed him that no construction work was going on, at the site. On the instructions of the complainant, his brother-in-law, vide letter dated 10.12.2008, requested the Opposite Party, for postponing the period of making payment of installments, followed by another letter dated 24.12.2008, and reminder vide email Annexure C-12. The Opposite Party, however, wrote letters dated 29.11.2008 and 24.12.2008, informing the complainant/allottee that the possession of commercial space/shop, would be delivered, on time, just with a view to entice him, to make timely payment. It was further stated that the fact remained that at the site, no construction work had commenced.
3. Thereafter, various letters were written, by the complainant, with regard to the status of progress, in construction, at the site, but no response was given by the Opposite Party. The complainant sent email dated 23.01.2009, Annexure C-17, in response to which, an email dated 07.05.2009, was received by him, from the Opposite Party, alongwith which news letter, on latest development update, and photographs were attached. It was further stated that the photographs, which were attached with the email, were the same, as were shown to the prospective applicants, in the year 2007. It was further stated that these photographs were sent only to play deception, upon the complainant, and other allottees. It was further stated that even after the lapse of one and a half year, from the date of execution of the Agreement, referred to above, no progress, in the construction at site, had taken place.
4. Since, the complainant came to the conclusion that no progress, in construction, was made, at the site and there was no possibility of the delivery of possession of commercial space/shop, by the promised date, a request, vide letter Annexure C-19, was made for the refund of amount, deposited by him, with interest. The said letter was responded to by the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 27.05.2009 Annexure C-20, wherein, it again mentioned that it was liable to make payment of compensation/penalty as per Clause 24.1 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, on account of delay, in the delivery of possession of commercial space/shop. It was further stated that the construction work had not started, even by then, at the site. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the complainant did not withdraw the letter, vide which the refund of amount, deposited by him, was sought by him. It was further stated that, thereafter, another letter dated 04.09.2009, was sent by the Opposite Party, demanding payment of next installment, without there being any construction at the site. It was further stated that, in response to the letter dated 04.09.2009, the complainant wrote letter dated 29.09.2009 Annexure C-22, requesting for the deferment of period of making payment of instalments towards the said shop, for at least one year, as there was no construction at the site. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, further installments were not paid by the complainant.
5. It was further stated that the period of 36 months, for the completion of project, and handing over possession of commercial space/shop, lapsed on 31.03.2011, and till that date, neither any construction had commenced, at the site not the question of delivery of possession arose. It was further stated that the complainant received another letter dated 30.06.2011, cancelling the allotment of commercial space/shop, allotted to him, on flimsy grounds. It was further stated that the issuance of such letter, was, with a motive to evade the liability by the Opposite Party, to pay compensation/penalty. It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party in Sector 17, Chandigarh. However the officials present there rejected his request, for the refund of amount, deposited by him.
6. It was further stated that, by neither making any progress, in the construction of commercial space/shop, nor delivering the possession thereof, nor refunding the amount, deposited by him, and, on the other hand, for its own fault, cancelling the allotment, made in favour of the complainant, the Opposite Party, was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.15,81,324/-, alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the date of respective deposits, till realization; pay compensation, as per the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, @Rs.50/- per sq. ft. per month, w.e.f. 01.04.2011, till realization; compensation, in the sum of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.
7. The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that since the complainant applied for the allotment of commercial space/shop, in question, for the purpose of running commercial activities therein, on a large scale, to earn huge profits, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as per Section2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It was further pleaded that an arbitration clause was incorporated, in the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, according to which, the disputes and differences, arising between the parties, were to be referred to the arbitration, under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and, as such, this Commission has no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was stated that the complainant booked the commercial space/shop, and opted for time linked payment plan. It was further stated that out of the total price of Rs.48,32,839/-, of commercial space/shop, the complainant only made payment of Rs.15,81,324/-. It was further stated that various letters were sent to the complainant, for making the payment of remaining installments, but he failed to do so, as a result whereof, he himself was a defaulter and by invoking the provisions of Clause 21 of the Agreement, the allotment of commercial space/shop was cancelled and the amount deposited by him, was forfeited. It was further stated that, in case of delay of delivery of possession of the commercial space/shop, as per the terms and conditions of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, the Opposite Party was to pay compensation/penalty for the period of delay. It was denied that the Opposite Party was to complete the construction, within 36 months, from the date of execution of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement, the period of delivery of possession of the unit, was extendable for further 90 days, after 36 months, aforesaid. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
8. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his own affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
9. The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Rajnish Kaushik, its AGM and authorized representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
11. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a Consumer Complaint, could be filed in the State Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, or the Party against which, the reliefs sought, was working for gain or residing. It is evident, from Annexure C-6, copy of the receipt dated 21.05.2008, that the complainant made payment of Rs.4,51,807/-, on account of installment of the commercial space/shop to the authorized signatory of the Opposite Party, at Chandigarh. Annexure C-6, photocopy of the receipt, also bears the photo impression of the stamp of Emaar MGF Land Ltd., Chandigarh. Annexure C-9 is another receipt dated 26.08.2008, issued, in favour of the complainant, vide which, he made payment of Rs.4,51,807/-, on account of second installment of the commercial space/shop, to the authorized signatory of the Opposite Party. Annexure C-9 photocopy of the receipt, also bears the photo impression of the stamp of Emaar MGF Land Ltd., Chandigarh. It means that payment of two instalments towards the price of commercial space/shop was made at Chandigarh.
Since, 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 Party, in the written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. The second question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Act, was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of the reason, that an arbitration Clause existed, in the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.). With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, is required to be made, which reads as under ;
3.Act not in derogation of any other law.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of arbitration clause, in the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), would not oust the Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.
Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC).
In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. The Counsel for the Opposite Party, also placed reliance on Clause 43.6 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), and submitted that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, and the Courts Subordinate thereto, having territorial Jurisdiction over the premises or the Central Plaza shall, to the specific exclusion of all other Courts, alone have the exclusive Jurisdiction, in all matters, arising out of/touching and/or concerning the same (Agreement). He further submitted that, when the parties, mutually agreed to the exclusion of Jurisdiction of the Courts, at Chandigarh, and limiting Jurisdiction, to the Courts, at Mohali, where the property, in question, is situated, besides the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, this Commission has no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, does not merit acceptance, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. No doubt, the commercial space/shop, in question, is situated at Mohali, which falls in the State of Punjab. It may be stated here that, this Commission is not a Court. All the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13(4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that a Clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras, as the Foras are not the Courts. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of Jurisdiction. In the instant case, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC) = VII(2011) SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case. In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I(2013) CPJ 169 (NC), the agreements were executed, between the Parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi, and Hyderabad. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the Parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. It may also be stated here, that, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts at Mohali, besides the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to him (complainant), to file the complaint. If, by mutual agreement, the Parties exclude the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, where a part of cause of action arose, then that agreement could be said to be, in violation of the provisions of Sections 11/17 of the Act. Under these circumstances Clause 43.6 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), being in breach of Section 17 of the Act, could not operate. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, from Clause 43.6 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), referred to above. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. The fourth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer or not. No doubt, the complainant applied for a commercial space/shop measuring 1417 sq. feet, very small in size, net price whereof is Rs.48,32,839/-. He, in paragraphs number 1 and 2, of the complaint, in clear-cut terms, stated that he intended to use the said commercial space/shop, for earning his livelihood, by way of self employment, by opening a consultancy business, as he had done Bachelor of Engineering, in Electronics, from a reputed College, and was earlier working with a Multinational Company, in Nigeria. This fact was duly substantiated by him, through his affidavit, filed by way of evidence. The Opposite Party, failed to produce, on record, any evidence that the complainant is a property dealer or he intended to purchase the commercial space/shop, by way of investment, with a view to sell the same, in the event of escalation of prices. No evidence was also produced, by the Opposite Party, that the complainant was having other commercial space/shop, in the project, in question, or in other projects, and, as such, his sole motive to purchase the same (commercial space/shop), was to run a commercial activity, on a large scale, to gain huge profits. No evidence was also produced, by the Opposite Party, to prove that the complainant was already having thriving business or indulging into commercial activities, on a large scale, with a view to gain profits, and, as such, the commercial space/shop, in question, was intended to be purchased by him, just with a view, to earn huge profits, by selling the same. Since, the complainant booked the commercial space/shop, in question, very small in size, as stated above, and was allotted the same, and he also, in clear-cut terms, stated in the complaint, that he intended to purchase the same, for earning his livelihood, by way of self employment, in the manner, referred to above, it could certainly be said that he fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The objection taken by the Opposite Party, in this regard, in the written version, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Party could legally and validly, cancel the allotment, in favour of the complainant, on the ground, that he had failed to make payment of further installments, towards the price of shop. Reliance was placed by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, on Clause 21 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), which reads as under:-
21.1 The Developer shall have the right to terminate the Agreement and forfeit the Earnest Money deposited by the Allottee in the event that the Allottee delays any payment due and payable in accordance with the Schedule of Payments then in that event the Developer shall also be entitled to charge interest @15% p.a. simple interest at the time of every succeeding installment form the due date of installment, as per the Schedule of Payments, till the date of payment.
21.2 However, the Developer may in its sole discretion, waive its right to terminate this Agreement and enforce all the payments and seek specific performance of this Agreement. In such a case, the Parties agree that the possession of the premises will be handed over to the Allottee only upon the payment of all outstanding dues, penalties etc. alongwith interest by the Allottee to the satisfaction of the Developer.
16. In our considered opinion, the Opposite Party could not take shelter under the provisions of Clause 21 (21.1 and 21.2) extracted above, of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.). The Opposite Party, could not invoke the provisions of this Clause, until and unless, it had made progress in the construction of commercial space/shop, allotted to the complainant. As stated above, by the time, the second installment towards the price of commercial space/shop, was made by the complainant, not even a single brick, at the site, had been laid, what to speak of construction of the same, (commercial space/shop). Even by the time, the complaint was filed on 19.02.2013, neither the construction had been raised nor the commercial space/shop was ready for the delivery of possession. For its own fault, the Opposite Party could not blame the complainant. In Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), no development work was carried out, at the site. Thus, the payment of further installments was stopped by the complainant. It was, under these circumstances, held that the builder could not be allowed to take shelter, under the agreement clause, to usurp the money deposited by the complainant. It was further held that the builder cannot forfeit the entire money, paid by the complainant, on account of his own fault, in not carrying out the development work. Ultimately, the Honble National Commission, ordered the refund of amount with interest. The observations made in Prasad Homes Private Limited`s case (supra), are fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, that since the complainant did not deposit the remaining installments, towards the price of commercial space/shop, the Opposite Party was entitled to cancel the allotment thereof, and forfeit the amount, deposited by him, as per Clause 21 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. The Opposite Party, thus, illegally cancelled the allotment, and forfeited the amount deposited by the complainant. Such illegal act of the Opposite Party is set aside.
17. The commercial space/shop, in question, was allotted to the complainant, on 05.03.2008, vide allotment letter Annexure C-3. The Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), was executed between the parties, on 31.03.2008. According to Clause 22.1 of the same, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons beyond the control of the Developer and subject to the allottee not being in default of any of the provisions of the agreement, and having complied with all provisions, completed formalities, documents etc., and the terms and conditions of the same (agreement), it (Developer) proposed to hand over the possession of unit, within a period of 36 months, from the date of signing the same (Agreement), with a grace period of 90 days. It means that the possession of commercial space/shop was to be delivered to the complainant, on or before 31.03.2011, with a grace period of 90 days. The installment payment plan, which was opted by the complainant, is at page 16 of the file. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,77,710/-, as 15% of the booking amount. He further deposited a sum of Rs.4,51,807/-, on 20.05.2008, being 10% of the price of the commercial space/shop, within three months of the booking. He further deposited a sum of Rs.4,51,807/-, being the second installment i.e. 10% of the basic price, within 6 months of the booking. It was, thereafter, that when he asked Inderjit Verma, his brother-in-law, who was residing in India, to visit the site, to see the progress in construction, that he came to know that there was no construction, at the site. A letter dated 10.12.2008, Annexure C-10, was written by the brother-in-law of the complainant, on his (complainant) instructions, requesting the Opposite Party, to postpone the payment of further installments, since no construction activity was going on, at the site. Annexure C-11 is another letter dated 24.12.2008, whereby, the Opposite Party was asked, as to when, the possession of commercial space/shop, was going to be delivered by it. In response thereto, letter Annexure C-13 dated 24.12.2008, was written to the complainant, by Alamdeep Singh, Manager Customer Services, of the Opposite Party, that it was not possible for it (Opposite Party), to give the exact date, regarding the completion of project. It was further stated, in this letter that, according to Clause 24.1 of the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), in case of delay, in delivery of possession of commercial space/shop, compensation/penalty was to be paid by the Opposite Party, to the allottees. The Opposite Party did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence, on record, to the effect, as to upto which level, the construction, had been raised, when the payment of second installment towards price of the commercial space/shop, was made by the complainant. Even, in the written version, it was not stated by the Opposite Party, specifically, that by 20.08.2008. when the payment of second installment towards the part price of commercial space/shop was made by the complainant, the construction had reached at a specific stage. When the complainant found that there was no progress in construction, it was not obligatory upon him, to pay the remaining installments, until a firm assurance, had been held out to him, by the Opposite Party, that the project would be completed, by the promised date. Since, there was no construction, at the site, no offer of possession of the unit was made by the promised date. Even after the complaint was filed on 19.02.2013, in this Commission, and the written version was submitted by the Opposite Party, nothing was stated, therein, that construction of commercial space/shop had been completed and the same was ready for delivery of physical possession, to the complainant. Since, the Opposite Party failed to adhere to the terms and conditions, contained in the Central Plaza Premises Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-3/A (colly.), it could not blame the complainant, for not making payment of the remaining installments. Since, the construction was not being undertaken, if the complainant did not pay the remaining installments, he could not be held responsible. Had there been any progress, in construction of the commercial space/shop, the default on the part of the complainant, to make payment of further installments, would have certainly mattered much. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that since the complainant defaulted, in making payment, as such, he could not claim refund. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected.
18. Since, neither the commercial space/shop, which was allotted to the complainant, was constructed, nor there was any progress in construction, at the site, as stated above, the complainant was right, in not making payment of further installments, towards the price of the same (shop). Hard earned money, deposited by the complainant, towards the part price of commercial space/shop was utilized by the Opposite Party, for a number of years. The Opposite Party, by neither constructing the commercial space/shop, nor refunding the amount to the complainant, was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to the refund of Rs.15,81,324/-, alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits.
19. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment or not. After making payment of Rs.15,81,324/-, towards the part price of commercial space/shop, no progress of construction of the same, was made by the Opposite Party, at the site. There is no evidence, on the record, that any progress in construction was made, by the Opposite Party. The complainant, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, on account of this reason.
20. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
i. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,81,324/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for causing mental agony and harassment, to the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iii. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.
iv. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party, shall be liable to pay amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @15% P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and interest @15% P.A., on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
22. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
23. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
May 10, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg