State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shashi Kanta vs 1. M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 19 January, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint : 115 of 2014 Date of Institution : 17.09.2014 Date of Decision : 19/01/2015 Shashi Kanta Sharma W/o Late Sh. Madan Dev Sharma, R/o House No.912, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh. Complainant. Versus 1. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, 17-B, MGF House Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002, through its Managing Director. 2. M/s Emaar MGF Land Private Limited, SCO No.120-122, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Regional Head. ....Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate alongwith Sh. Kohal Dev, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties floated a scheme for the allotment of residential plots under the name and style of Mohali Hills, Mohali Punjab. One Mr.Sushil Kumar Sharma, submitted application no.1963 to them, for the allotment of a residential plot, in the said project and paid Rs.17,25,500/-, as booking amount. It was stated that Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, was allotted plot No.66, measuring 500 square yards, in Sector 108, Pinewood Greens, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, @ Rs.11,500/- per square yard, the total price whereof was Rs.59,95,415/- i.e. (Rs.57,50,000/-
basic sale price (+) Rs.2,45,415/- towards External Development Charges).
2. It was further stated that Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, was executed between Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma and the Opposite Parties in respect of plot No. 66. It was further stated that according to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, the Opposite Parties were to hand over physical possession of the plot within the maximum period of 36 months from the date of execution of the same i.e. by 19.06.2010, failing which they were liable to pay compensation/ penalty @ Rs.50/- per square yard, per month, for the period of delay till the delivery of possession. It was further stated that, by 20.12.2010, Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma had deposited the entire sale consideration, to the tune of Rs.59,95,415/-, with the Opposite Parties, as is evident from the statement of account Annexure C-2, at page 33 of the file.
3. It was further stated that, in the meantime, the complainant purchased the said plot from Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma. It was further stated that the said plot was transferred, in the name of the complainant, vide nomination letter dated 29.09.2011 Annexure C-3, by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that in the month of June 2013, the complainant visited the Office of Opposite Party No.2, and requested to deliver possession of the said plot, as she wanted to start construction thereon. It was further stated that the Officials of Opposite Party No.2, assured the complainant, that the project was near completion and possession of the plot, in question, would be delivered, within a few months, as they were in the process of seeking some clearances from the Competent Authorities.
4. It was further stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Parties sent a letter dated 18.04.2014 (Annexure C-4), whereby an illegal demand of Rs.14,26,684.69Ps., was raised by them. It was further stated that, on the other hand, Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma, the original allottee, had already cleared/paid the entire sale consideration, in respect of the plot, in question, as on 20.12.2010. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sent another demand letter dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure C-5), wherein, the complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.10,91,205.00Ps, immediately, in respect of the said plot. It was further stated that left with no other alternative, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure C-6) to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that, on the other hand, the Opposite Parties sent another demand letter dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure C-7), in the sum of Rs.10,11,205/-It was further stated that in the said letter (Annexure C-7), the Opposite Parties, threatened the complainant that, in case, the said amount was not paid within 30 day, the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, in respect of the said unit, would be terminated. It was further stated that the demand of amount, made by Opposite Parties, vide Annexure C-7, was illegal and arbitrary, as the entire sale consideration, in respect of the said plot, had already been received by them.
5. It was further stated that the parties are governed by the Punjab Apartments and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA, 1995). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, being promoters had to obtain the occupation and completion certificates, under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, but they never obtained the same. It was further stated that it was conceded by the Opposite Parties, that completion certificate from GMADA had not yet been obtained, until 16.12.2011. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to obtain regular electricity supply, for want of clearance from the Pollution Control Board. It was further stated that even the Opposite Parties failed to install sewerage and water treatment plants earlier, which were stated to have been provided, only in the year 2014.
6. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had been sending contradictory letters dated 18.04.2014 Annexure C-4 demanding a sum of Rs.14,26,684.69Ps., and dated 25.08.2014 Annexure C-7, demanding a sum of Rs.10,11,205/-. It was further stated that, on the other hand, from the perusal of the statement of account dated 20.12.2010 Annexure C-2, it was quite clear that till that time, the total outstanding against the complainant was Zero. It was further stated that the interest on delayed payment of instalments, if any, was waived off, by the Opposite Parties, and they could not demand Rs.3,09,916/-, on account of the same. It was further stated that even the Opposite Parties failed to pay the penalty/compensation, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, executed between the parties.
7. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence 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 Parties to handover the legal physical possession of plot No.66, measuring 500 square yards in Sector 108, Pinewood Greens, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, to her, complete in all respects or in the alternative, to refund the amount, deposited towards the same, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; set aside the letters Annexures C-4 and C-7, being illegal and arbitrary; pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard per month from 20.06.2010 till realization; compound interest @12% P.A., on the amount of Rs.59,95,415/-, from 20.12.2010, till the possession of plot, in question, was delivered; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, on account of mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.
8. The Opposite Parties, put in appearance on 24.10.2014, and filed their joint written version, on 12.01.2015. In the joint written version, it was pleaded by the Opposite Parties, that the cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant, in November 2009, when Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, the original allottee was offered possession of the plot, or at the most from 29.09.2011, when the plot, in question, was transferred in her favour. It was further pleaded that the complainant could file the complaint, within 2 years, from November 2009 or 29.09.2011. It was further pleaded that the complaint having been filed in the year 2014, was palpably barred by time. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as she purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, to gain huge profits. It was further pleaded that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that since the complainant sought the enforcement of Agreement, in respect of the immovable property, only a suit for specific performance, in the Civil Court was maintainable. The factum of allotment of plot, aforesaid, in favour of Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, and subsequent transfer thereof, in favour of the complainant was admitted. Receipt of amount of Rs.59,95,415/-, as mentioned in the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, was also not specifically denied. Execution of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, between Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, and the Opposite Parties was also admitted. It was stated that the complainant concealed the material facts that possession of the plot, in question, was offered to the previous allottee, in November 2009, vide letter Annexure R-1, even prior to the agreed timeline provided in the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, and, thereafter, to her (complainant), vide Annexure R-2 dated 16.12.2011, after providing the amenities, as per Clause 23 of the same (Agreement). It was further stated that the complainant was defaulter in making payments towards the said plot, as a result whereof, the Opposite Parties had to send numerous letters/reminders, for the same. It was denied that any arbitrary demand of amount, was made by the Opposite Parties, from the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant herself failed to take possession of the plot. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were exempted from the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, and, as such, completion certificate was not required to be obtained, at the time of delivery possession of the plot. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sent the settlement of final dues Annexure R-6 to the complainant, on 25.08.2014, but she failed to pay the same. It was further stated that the amount demanded from the complainant, was legally due against her, towards final settlement. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
9. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
10. The complainant, in support of her case, submitted her own affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
11. The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Sachin Kapoor, their Senior Manager (Legal), by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
12. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
13. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here, that the mere objection of the Opposite Parties that the complainant being speculator, purchased the plot, in the manner, referred to above, by way of investment, to gain huge profits, by selling the same, as and when there was escalation in prices, does not carry any weight and is liable to be rejected. It was clearly averred, by the complainant, in paragraph no.4 of the complaint, supported by her affidavit, by way of evidence, that she had to start construction of house, on the said plot, at the earliest, as a result whereof, she intended to purchase the same, from the Opposite Parties. Even otherwise, the mere fact that it was a residential plot, which was allotted, in favour of the complainant, in the manner, referred to above, was sufficient to prove that it was to be used for the purpose of residence, by her. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property. No evidence was also produced, by the Opposite Parties, to prove that the complainant owned a number of other residential properties, in the tricity, and, as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. The complainant, thus, availed of the services of the Opposite Parties, for the allotment of a residential plot, in question, with a view to raise construction thereon, and reside in the same. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the cause of action accrued to the complainant, when possession of the plot, in question, was offered to Mr.Sushil Kumar Sharma, the original allottee, in the year 2009, vide letter Annexure R-1), and, thereafter, was repeated vide letter dated 16.12.2011 Annexure R-2, but she failed to take the same, and, as such, the consumer complaint, having been filed in the year 2014 was clearly barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, does not merit acceptance. It may be stated here, that there is nothing, on record, as to by which mode, the letter Annexure R-1 was sent to Mr.Sushil Kumar, the original allottee. Annexure R-2 dated 16.12.2011 was statedly sent to the complainant through courier. Photocopy of the courier receipt attached with Annexure R-2, only bears the name of the complainant and not her address. No courier receipt duly signed by the complainant, in token of having received Annexure R-2 was produced by the Opposite Parties. Thus, it was not proved that Annexure R-2 was ever received by the complainant. The receipt of these letters Annexure R-1 and R-2 has been specifically denied by the complainant. According to Clause 36 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, all notices, referred to therein (Agreement), were required to be in writing and deemed to be properly given and served upon the party(s), if sent either by registered A.D. or speed A.D., on his/her respective address. Both these letters were not sent through registered A.D. or speed A.D. Under these circumstances, these letters were allegedly sent in contravention of the provisions of Clause 36 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1. Since letters Annexures R-1 and R-2 were neither received by Mr.Sushil Kumar Sharma, the original allottee of the plot, in question, nor by the complainant, the question of accrual of cause of action, in favour of the latter, in 2009 or 2011, did not at all arise. Thus, in our considered opinion, neither the possession of plot No.66, measuring 500 square yards in Sector 108, Pinewood Greens, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, was offered, nor delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date, nor till the date of filing the complaint nor the penalty, as provided in the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1,, was paid to her. There was, thus, a continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah a nd Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement, made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well that the land, in question, was under litigation. Consumer complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The next 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, by the complainant, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to him. In the instant case, the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, in respect of the plot, in question, was executed, between Mr. Sushil Sharma, the original allottee and the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. The complainant stepped into his shoes. It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission has, therefore, got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, that this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, in respect of the immoveable property, as such, the consumer complaint was not maintainable.
The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, also does not appear to be correct. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, and she was allotted the same, in the manner, referred to above, for consideration. According to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to deliver physical possession of the unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), but not later than three years. According to Clause 23 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, the Opposite Parties were responsible to provide internal services, within the Project, which interalia included laying of the roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. etc. It was not that the complainant purchased the unit, in an open auction, on as is where is basis, without any further promise of the Opposite Parties, of providing amenities/ facilities, and developing the area, where the unit, in question, is situated. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines service as under:-
service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service
17.
From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor the nature of transaction is covered by the expression service of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes service within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit, for specific performance, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by her, as he falls within the definition of a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties were required to obtain the occupation and completion certificates, as envisaged by Section 14 of the PAPRA 1995. Section 14 of the PAPRA 1995 reads as under:-
14. Occupation and completion certificate:- (1) It is the responsibility of the promoter:-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all respects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted, to him under section 5.
(2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate.
19. Section 44 of the PAPRA 1995 reads as under:-
44.
Exemption:- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 32, nothing in this Act shall apply if the promoter is:-
(a) a local authority or statutory body constituted for the development of land or housing:
or
(b) a company or a body created for development of land or housing or promotion of industry wholly owned and controlled by the State Government or the Central Government.
(2) If the State Government is of the opinion, that the operation of any of the provisions of this Act, causes undue hardship, or circumstances exist which render it expedient to do so, it may exempt, by a general or special order, any class of persons or areas from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such terms and conditions as it my impose.
20. No doubt, in the normal course, the Opposite Parties were required to obtain occupation and completion certificates, under Section 14 of the PAPRA 1995. However, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 44(2) of the PAPRA 1995, and all other powers enabling him, to act in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab, was pleased to exempt the aforesaid Housing Project of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd/Opposite Parties, from the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (Punjab Act No.14 of 1995), except Section 32, which does not relate to the subject matter, vide Notification Nos. 18/41/2006-5HG-II/7397 dated 11.08.2006, 18/41/2006-5HG-II/12790 dated 22.12.2006 and CTP (Pb) MPR. 2/594 dated 22.01.2008. Once the exemption was granted, by the State Government, vide the Notifications aforesaid, to the project of the Opposite Parties, from the provisions of the PAPRA 1995, it could not be said that, in the absence of occupation and completion certificates, legal possession of the plot, in question, could not be handed over to the complainant. Had vide these Notifications, the project of the Opposite Parties, been not exempted, from the provisions of the PAPRA 1995, the matter would have been different. In that event, there would have been some merit, in the submission of the Counsel for the complainant. It is, therefore, held that obtaining of the occupation and completion certificates, as envisaged by Section 14 of the PAPRA 1995, was not necessary, by the Opposite Parties, in respect of its project, in view of the exemption, having been granted to it, vide the Notifications, aforesaid. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
21. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. As stated above, according to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), but not later than three years. It is, thus, evident, from this Clause, that the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, within the maximum period of three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, i.e. latest by 19.06.2010. As held above, possession of the unit, in question, was neither offered nor delivered to Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, the original allottee, by the stipulated date, nor to the complainant, even by the time, the complaint was filed. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within the maximum period of three years, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, and by not abiding by the commitments, made by the Opposite Parties, they (Opposite Parties) were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant is certainly entitled to physical possession of the unit, in question.
22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, in question, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date. According to Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay to the complainant, penalty/ compensation, in the sum of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, beyond three years, from the date of execution of the same. The possession of plot, in question, was not delivered to the allottee, by the stipulated date, or even by the time, the complaint was filed. The complainant is, thus, entitled to compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 19.06.2010 (promised date) onwards, on account of delay, in the delivery of possession of the fully developed plot, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above.
23. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to her, for a long number of years, by not delivering the physical possession of the plot, to her, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date i.e. 19.06.2010. The complainant purchased the plot, in the manner, referred to above, with the hope to have a roof over her head alongwith with her family members, by raising construction thereon, but her hopes were dashed to the ground. Till date, i.e. even after the expiry of a period of more than about four years, from the promised date, i.e. 19.06.2010, physical possession of the plot, has not yet been handed over to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. Compensation of Rs.2 lacs, if granted, on account of deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, as also mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, by them shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs.
24. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the demand of Rs.10,11,205/-, made by the Opposite Parties, vide notice dated 25.08.2014 Annexure R-6, is wholly and completely legal and valid or not. The Counsel for the complainant, submitted that according to Annexure C-2, the statement of account dated 20.12.2010, issued by the Opposite Parties, outstanding amount, against the predecessor in-interest of the complainant, was shown to be zero. He further submitted that the predecessor in-interest of the complainant, was held to be qualified for 5% waiver of the basic sale price of the unit, in question. He further submitted that once nothing was shown due, as is evident from the statement of account Annexure C-2, against the predecessor in-interest of the complainant, then the demand raised by the Opposite Parties, could be said to be wholly and completely illegal. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, does not appear to be wholly correct. The interest on delayed payment of instalments, if any, was waived off by the Opposite Parties. Had it not been waived off, it would have been shown in the statement of account Annexure C-2 dated 20.12.2010. Club membership was optional and no demand with regard to the same could be made, as the complainant was not interested in the same. The demand of Rs.30,000/-, on account of interest free maintenance security, Rs.72,996/-, on account of enhanced external development charges, Rs.14,250/-, on account of electrification charges, and Rs.24,196/-, on account of electricity connection charges, made by the Opposite Parties, vide statement of account, sent alongwith notice dated 25.08.2014 Annexure R-6, was in accordance with Clauses 25,26,27 and 28, of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1. There is nothing on record, that the aforesaid amount was ever paid by the complainant or her predecessor in-interest. Payment of these amounts was also not shown in Annexure C-2. The complainant has disputed that she being a lady, was required to be charged stamp duty at a lesser rate. The stamp duty, would be charged from the complainant, at the time of execution and registration of sale deed, as per the law and the Rules applicable. Even otherwise, the stamp duty and registration charges, applicable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, shall have to be paid by the complainant. At this stage, it could not be said that the stamp duty, demanded by the Opposite Parties, to the tune of Rs.4,86,000/-, is in accordance with the law and Rules applicable. It is, therefore, held demand of Rs.1,41,442/-out of the total amount demanded vide Annexure R-6, is legal and valid. So far as the requisite stamp duty and registration charges are concerned, as stated above, those shall be paid by the complainant, at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It is therefore held that the demand raised by the Opposite Parties, vide notice dated 25.08.2014 Annexure R-6, is partially legal, as indicated above.
25. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
26. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
(i). The Opposite Parties, are directed to hand over physical possession of plot No.66, measuring 500 square yards in Sector 108, Pinewood Greens, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, to the complainant, within 2 months, complete in all respects, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount, of Rs.1,41,442/- as indicated above, by her (complainant).
(ii). The Opposite Parties are further directed to execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by her to the Registering Authorities.
(iii). The Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 19.06.2010 (the promised date of delivery of possession), till the delivery of possession of plot No.66, measuring 500 square yards in Sector 108, Pinewood Greens, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, to the complainant, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1.
(iv). The Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, to the complainant on account of deficiency in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice mental agony and physical harassment, caused to her (complainant), at their hands..
(v). The Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.
(vi). Compensation, granted to the complainant, as mentioned in Clause (iii), which has fallen due upto 31.01.2015, shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A., from 19.06.2010, till the delivery of possession of plot No.66, measuring 500 square yards in Sector 108, Pinewood Greens, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab.
(vii). Compensation accruing due @Rs.50/-per square yard, per month, w.e.f. 01.02.2015, onwards, shall be paid by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @9 % P.A., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession.
(viii). Compensation granted, in favour of the complainant, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, as mentioned in Clause (iv), shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, within a period of 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which they shall pay interest @9% P.A., on the same, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.
27. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
28. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
19/01/2015 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.