State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Ibensreet Singh Bajwa on 17 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 288 of 2014 Date of Institution : 22.08.2014 Date of Decision : 17.10.2014 1. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 through its Managing Director. 2. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its General Manager. Appellants/Opposite Parties. Versus Ibensreet Singh Bajwa s/o Late Lt. Col. H. S. Bajwa through its Special Power of Attorney Mrs. Balwinder Bajwa w/o Late Lt. Col. H. S. Bajwa, residents of House No.2260-A, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Complainant. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-
17. For the reasons recorded above, the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-
(i) To refund an amount of Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area + Rs.9920/- as service tax on increased area + Rs.85,131/- paid as Pre-EMI to HDFC + Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and maintenance charges of Rs.14,141/- (Total Rs.4,55,241/-) along with interest @12% from the date of the respective deposits by the complainant till realization.
ii) To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for delay in handing over of possession of the flat and changing the place of parking and resultant mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
iii) To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
18. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.4,55,241/- @18% p.a. from the date of the respective deposits by the complainant till realization. The OPs shall also pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, in case of default of payment within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, with an intention to own a residential flat, for her own residential purpose, near the vicinity of city beautiful Chandigarh, agreed to purchase flat bearing No.4 FF at Palm Grove comprising 3 BHK, measuring super area of about 1525 Sq. Ft. at a total price of Rs.32,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties, in Sector 115, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali. It was stated that allotment letter dated 21.7.2009, was signed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties mentioning certain terms and conditions, as the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rs.1,20,00/- on 14.7.2009 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.7.2009) to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that copy of the allotment letter was misplaced somewhere by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant applied for the issuance of duplicate copy of the allotment letter to Opposite Party No.2, vide letter dated 3.7.2013 through his Special Power of Attorney, but it refused to supply the same. It was further stated that, thus, the complainant annexed with his complaint copy of allotment letter of another similarly situated person as Annexure C-5. It was further stated that as per Para 10 of the allotment letter, the possession of the said flat was to be given within a period of 24 months i.e. by 21.07.2011 from the date of allotment letter. It was further stated that the complainant took housing loan of Rs.25,60,000/- from HDFC Ltd., out of which, first installment of Rs.9,60,000/- was disbursed on 30.09.2009. HDFC Ltd. also disbursed rest of the payments on behalf of the complainant well in time. It was further stated that the complainant also paid another sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the Opposite Parties towards the price of the flat vide receipt dated 28.10.2009 and Rs.60,000/- as car parking charges vide receipt dated 30.09.2010.
3. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never apprised the complainants about the progress of project, during its construction or even after the expiry of the stipulated period of two years. It was further stated that on 25.7.2012, the complainant paid other sums of Rs.5,33,217/- and Rs.1,60,000/- to the Opposite Parties, on which date, Opposite Party No.2 offered possession of the residential unit No.4 FF vide letter No.ALML/Palm Grove/Mohali dated 25.7.2012 to the complainant. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainant inspected unit No.4 FF and found that the same was far from habitation. It was further stated that again on 11.9.2012, the Opposite Parties offered possession to the complainant, which clearly meant that on earlier occasion, the possession offered was not ready for occupation. It was further stated that after making all the payments to the Opposite parties, when the complainant saw the account statement (Annexure C-13) provided by the Opposite Parties, number of illegalities were found.
4. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties charged Rs.20,000/- alongwith service tax of Rs.2,472/- from the complainant on account of Internal Development Charges, whereas the IDC was very much part and parcel of the project. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, of their own, increased the super area of the flat, from 1525 Sq. Ft. to 1678 Sq. Ft., which was neither disclosed to the complainant nor any consent was obtained from him and, as such, he was charged a sum of Rs.3,21,049/- on account of increase in super area plus Rs.9,920/- as service tax thereon. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also charged Rs.9,705/- as interest on delayed payments whereas the HDFC Ltd., on behalf of the complainant, had made all the payments well within time and there was no delay on their part in making payments. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also forced the complainant to deposit Rs.25,000/- on account of interest free security deposit and the maintenance charges of Rs.14,141/- for the period prior to the possession, with Star Facilities Management Limited (SFML) SCO 183-184, Sector 9C, Chandigarh & Orchid County, Sector 115, Mohali. It was further stated that the complainant was left with no choice, but to deposit the said amounts with SFML in order to take possession of the unit, in question. It was further stated that the complainant was given the possession of unit only on 14.09.2012 and, therefore, the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.39,141/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, as he did not utilize the services of SFML. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also charged the complainant with an amount of Rs.60,000/- for open car parking, which was shown in the brochure to be provided in front of the flats across the road, whereas, the Opposite Parties played a fraud by allotting the open car parking just along the entry road and the car parking was far away from the complainants unit.
5. It was further stated that the complainant booked his flat under the subvention scheme wherein the Opposite Parties were to pay the Pre-EMIs to the HDFC till the date actual possession was given as the complainant had taken home loan of Rs.25,60,000/- from HDFC. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had been paying pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. up to June, 2012 and, therefore, they suddenly stopped paying the pre-EMI, as a result whereof, the complainant had to pay Rs.85,131/- as pre-EMI to HDFC for the period from July 2012 to September 2012. It was further stated that possession of the unit was given on 14.9.2012 after a delay of 14 months, for which, the complainant was entitled to be compensated @Rs.15,000/- per month and, as such, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay Rs.2,10,000/- + interest @18%.
6. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.6,30,674/-, which included Rs.60,000/- towards car parking, Rs.20,000/- as IDC, Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area, Rs.9,920/- as service tax on increased area, Rs.9,705/- as interest on delayed payment, Rs.2,10,000/- as rental value and Rs.85,131/- as payment towards Pre-EMI to HDFC alongwith interest @18%; to provide car parking in front of the unit 4FF as shown and promised in the brochure, and to pay Rs.5 Lacs as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as litigation costs.
7. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, took up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complainant was not consumer under the definition of the Act because he invested in the property purely for commercial purpose. On merits, it was stated that the complainant entered into the terms and conditions after fully reading and understanding the same. It was denied that the Opposite Parties had business tie up with HDFC Bank for providing finance facilities. It was further stated that the role of the Opposite Parties was to complete the paper transaction in order to facilitate the loan in order to help the allottee. It was further stated that the complainant opted for subvention scheme and it was never assured for handing over the possession in two years. It was further stated that Para 10 of the allotment letter speaks of likely handing over of the possession upon completion of certain formalities. It was further stated that the complainant was informed about the progress of construction as and when asked and the possession had been taken after making the full payment towards the flat and duly satisfying about the demand of outstanding dues and duly inspecting the flat. It was denied that the flat was unfit for habitation and the possession was again offered on 11.09.2012. It was further stated that the payment was made in accordance with the outstanding dues and there was no illegality on the part of the Opposite Parties as alleged. It was further stated that the IDC was charged as per Clause 3 of the allotment letter, which was payable to Govt. of Punjab and never credited in the account of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the IDC was not Internal Development Charges, in fact it was Infrastructural Development Charges. It was further stated that as per Clause 1(g), the super area was approximate and under Clause 9, the same could be increased or decreased, and, as such, the complainant was charged the amount which he had agreed to pay. It was denied that all the payments were made on time and there was no delay on complainants part in making payment. It was further stated that interest amount was waived off and never charged from the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was never forced to deposit the interest free security and maintenance charges. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the amount without any protest and as per clause 24 of the allotment letter agreed to between the parties. It was further stated that the parking charges were paid after full satisfaction by the complainant. It was further stated that the pictures placed, on record, by the complainant were not of the parking place. It was further stated that there was a separate lot provided to the allottees. It was further stated that under subvention scheme, the Opposite parties were to pay pre-EMI till offer of possession was made and not till the date of actual possession. It was further stated that the possession was offered in July, 2012 (Annexure C-12). It was denied that the complainant took possession of the flat on 14.09.2012 and there was any delay in possession of the flat. It was further stated that the possession of the flat was handed over in time. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
8. The complainant filed replication wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written version.
9. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
10. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of the instant order.
11. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
12. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, as also written submissions of the respondent/complainant carefully.
13. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the respondent/complainant was allotted flat bearing No.4 FF, at Palm Grove, super area of which was 1525 Sq. Feet at a total price of Rs.32,00,000/- vide allotment letter dated 21.7.2009. It was further submitted that possession of the said flat was offered on 25.7.2012 (Annexure C-12). It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant raised his grievance, with regard to the demand for payment on account of Internal Development Charges (infact infrastructural development charges); increase in super area of the flat plus service tax; payment of pre-EMI; interest free security deposit and maintenance charges and car parking.
14. It was further submitted that the charges on account of increase in area were recovered, in accordance with Clause 9 of terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the appellants/Opposite Parties were legally entitled to the same. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly held that the respondent/complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area plus Rs.9,920/- as service tax.
15. It was further submitted that as per Clause 9 of the allotment letter, in the event of either increase or decrease in the super area, no claim, monetary or otherwise would be raised or accepted except that the original agreed rate per sq. mt./sq. ft. and other charges would be applicable for the changed area at the same rate at which the apartment was registered/booked. It was further submitted that since the area of the flat was increased to 1678 Sq. Feet, the respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area plus Rs.9,902/- as service tax, without any protest. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant took over the possession of the flat, in question, on 14.09.2012 (Annexure C-15) and it neither represented nor raised any grievance regarding the same and the complaint was filed after a period of one year. It was further submitted that the onus was on the respondent/complainant to prove that there was no increase in the area.
16. It was further submitted that as per Clause 8 of the allotment letter, the respondent/complainant accepted the specifications and information, as set out in the brochure/annexure to the agreement, which were tentative and the Company could make such variations and modifications therein, as it, in its sole discretion deemed fit and proper or may be done by any Competent Authority and the apartment allottee gave his consent to such variations and modifications.
17. Referring to Clause 24 of the allotment letter, it was submitted that the allottee agreed and consented to the said agreement that he shall pay interest free security deposit to be worked at the time of handing over of possession on super area basis and maintenance charges determined by the Company or its nominee from time to time depending upon the maintenance cost. It was further submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties rightly charged security and maintenance charges. It was further submitted that the apartment was allotted on 21.7.2009 and the possession was to be delivered within a period of two years i.e. by 21.7.2011 and the same was, in fact, delivered on 14.9.2012. It was further submitted that the compensation in the sum of Rs.1 Lac, awarded by the District Forum, when the delay was for about one year only, was on the higher side. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant took over possession without any demur.
18. It was further submitted that once pre-EMI interest had been paid by the appellants/Opposite Parties, till the date of offering of possession in July, 2012, by no stretch of imagination could the appellants/Opposite Parties be placed under any obligation to continue to pay pre-EMI interest to the banker with whom a tripartite agreement was executed.
19. It was further submitted that as per Schedule-I of the allotment letter, the respondent/complainant was liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards IDC. It was further submitted that the District Forum in Para 10 of its order also rightly held that a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards IDC was payable by the respondent/complainant. It was further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, being erroneous, be set aside.
20. The Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties had been paying the Pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. up to June, 2012 and, thereafter, they suddenly stopped paying the same and the respondent/complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.85,131/- as Pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs.85,131/-, which he paid as Pre-EMI. It was further submitted that there was delay of 14 months in handing over actual possession of the flat. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly directed the appellants/Opposite Parties to refund Rs.3,21,049/- alongwith service tax of Rs.9,920/- charged on account of alleged increase in area of the flat. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly held that the respondent/complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment on account of delay on the part of Opposite Parties, in handing over the possession.
21. The factum of allotment of Apartment No.4 FF in Palm Grove, Sector 115, Mohali, for a total consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-, vide allotment letter (Annexure R-2) has been admitted. It is in evidence that the respondent/complainant paid the following amounts to the Opposite Parties, vide receipts/statement placed on record:-
Sr. No. Description Date of Receipt Amount Annexures 1 Booking Amount 14.07.2009 21.07.2009 1,20,000.00 2,00,000.00 C-2 C-3 2 28.10.2009 1,60,000.00 C-8 3 At the time of execution of allotment 30.09.2009 9,60,000.00 C-7 4 On completion of first floor roof slab 23.03.2010 8,00,000.00 C-13 (as per statement) 5 Car parking on completion of first floor roof slab 30.09.2010 60,000.00 C-9 6 On completion of doors and windows frames and internal plastering 24.06.2011 6,40,000.00 C-13 (as per statement) 7 At the time of offer of possession 25.07.2012 5,33,217.00 1,60,000.00 C-10 C-11 8 Interest Free Security Deposit Maintenance Charges 14.09.2012 25,000.00 + 14,141.00 = 39,141.00 C-14 (Colly) Total Amount Paid:
36,72,358.00
22. The first question, which arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/Opposite Parties rightly charged a sum of Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area + Rs.9,920/- as service tax on the said amount, or not. To answer this question, we consider it appropriate to extract Clause 9 of the allotment letter, hereunder:-
9. THAT the Company shall, under normal conditions, complete the construction of Palm Grove as per the said plans and specifications seen and accepted by the Apartment Allottees with such additions, deletions, alterations, modifications in the layout, building plans, change in number, dimensions, height, size, area or change of entire scheme the Company may consider necessary or may be required by any competent authority to be made in them or any of them. To implement all or any of these changes, supplementary allotment letter, if necessary will be executed by the company.
If as a result of the above alteration etc., there is either reduction or increase in the super area of the said premises or its location, no claim, monetary or otherwise will be raised or accepted except that the original agreed rate per sq. mt./sq.ft and other charges will be applicable for the changed area i.e. at the same rate at which the apartment was registered/booked or as the company may decide and as a consequence of such reduction or increase in the super area, the company shall be liable to refund without interest only the extra basic price and other pro rata charges recovered or shall be entitled to recover the additional basic price and other proportionate charges without interest as the case may be. If for any reason the company is not in a position to allot the property applied for, the company, at its sole discretion, shall consider for any alternative property or refund the amount deposited with simple interest @10% per annum.
23. The fact of increase in the area of apartment, in question, though disputed by the respondent/complainant, yet his contention is not supported by any cogent evidence. The fact that the respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area + Rs.9,920/- service tax without any protest implies that there was increase in the area from 1525 to 1678 sq.ft. Even the complaint to this effect was filed after one year of payment of the amount towards increase in area. Clearly, in view of the contents of the afore-extracted clause of allotment letter, the appellants/Opposite Parties were entitled to charge amount for the increased area and, as such, they did not commit any illegality in charging an amount Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area + Rs.9,920/- as service tax from the respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant did not produce any evidence that his consent was required for increasing the area. The District Forum, thus, erred in appreciating the facts correctly and, resultantly, returned the finding against the appellants/Opposite Parties erroneously.
24. The second question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/Opposite Parties, were liable to pay pre-EMI, amounting to Rs.85,131/-, till possession of the flat was taken over by the respondent/complainant in September 2012. Clause 10 of the allotment letter (Annexure R-2), being relevant, is extracted below:
10. THAT the possession of the said premises is likely to be delivered by the company to the apartment allottee within a period of 24 months from the date of this agreement subject to force majeure circumstances, & on receipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms and on receipt of completed payment of the basic sale price and other charges due and payable up to the date of possession according to the payment plan applicable to him. The Company on completion of the construction shall issue final call notice to the Apartment Allottee who shall within 30 days thereof, remit all dues and take possession of the Apartment. In the event of his failure to take possession for any reason whatsoever, he shall be deemed to have taken possession of the allotted unit for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit, but the actual physical possession shall be given on payment of all outstanding payments as demanded by the Company. The Allottee would be liable to pay holding charge @Rs.5/- per sq ft. per month if he fails to take possession within 30 days from the date of issue of offer of possession.
Had the appellants/Opposite Parties fulfilled their commitment of handing over the possession of flat within 24 months from the date of agreement/allotment, there would have been no occasion to bear this liability by the respondent/complainant, but, in the instant case, not only the possession was delayed but the complainant was burdened with liability in the shape of payment of pre-EMIs. The contention of the appellants/Opposite Parties that they were not bound to deliver the possession of flat, in question, within a period of 24 months, is based upon their own interpretation of Clause 10 of the allotment letter. A perusal of the contents of Clause 10 clearly reveals that possession was to be delivered within a period of 24 months, subject to force majeure circumstances. When the words force majeure were added, the same itself proved that the possession of the flat, in question, was to be delivered within 24 months and the contention that this period was tentative, is not on sound footing, as no evidence to the effect that the possession got delayed due to any force majeure circumstances has been produced. As such this plea is rejected being devoid of merit.
25. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties were right in recovering the maintenance charges of Rs.14,141/- and Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit from the respondent/complainant or not. To appreciate this controversy, we consider it appropriate to refer to Clause 24 of the allotment letter, which is extracted hereunder:-
24. THAT the Company shall look after the maintenance and upkeep of the Common areas and facilities until these are handed over to some body corporate or other agency nominated by the Company for maintenance, upkeep, repairs, security etc. of the building (s) including the landscaping and common areas. The Apartment Allottee agrees and consents to the said arrangement and he shall pay interest free security deposit to be worked at the time of handing over of possession on super area basis and maintenance charges determined by the company or its nominee from time to time depending upon the maintenance cost. In addition to maintenance charges, there will be contribution to the Replacement fund etc. Any delay in payments will make the Allottee liable for interest @18% per annum. Non payment of any of the charges within the time specified shall also disentitle the Apartment Allottee to the enjoyment of common service including lifts, electricity, water etc. The Allottee also undertakes to execute a separate agreement with the maintenance agency in the usual format which has been seen and approved by the Allottee.
26. It is clear from the afore-extracted clause that the respondent/complainant agreed and consented to pay interest free security deposit to be worked at the time of handing over of possession on super area basis and maintenance charges determined by the Opposite Parties from time to time depending upon the maintenance cost. Therefore, such charges were legally payable by the respondent/complainant and the payment thereof did not amount to any unfair trade practice. Thus, the finding of the District Forum that the Opposite Parties were not justified in demanding an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security and maintenance charges of Rs.14,141/-, is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
27. As regards the car parking, which, as per the brochure, was to be provided in front of the flats across the road, admittedly, the Opposite parties provided the said facility by allotting the open car parking just along the entry road and erected a high wall at the original site of the car parking across the road. To this extent, the Opposite Parties were certainly deficient in rendering service to the respondent/complainant. The District Forum, thus, rightly observed that the Opposite Parties could not wriggle out of their own document viz. brochure saying that the same was completely indicative in nature.
28. In our considered opinion, no doubt, there was delay in delivering possession of the flat, in question, to the respondent/complainant, yet the same (delay) was sufficiently covered in payment of pre-EMIs in the sum of Rs.85,131/- and escalation in the prices. In these circumstances, the compensation of Rs.1 Lac, awarded by the District Forum, is on the higher side. In our opinion, award of Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the respondent/complainant, partly on account of delay in possession and on account of deficiency, in providing car parking as promised, would meet the ends of justice. To this extent, the impugned order needs to be modified.
29. We also feel that the interest awarded by the District Forum at the rate of 12% per annum, while refunding the amount of pre-EMIs in the sum of Rs.85,131/- to the respondent/complainant, is also on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced to 10%. To this extent also, the impugned order needs to be modified.
30. Further the interest @18% per annum, awarded by the District Forum on the amount (Rs.85,131/-) to be refunded by the Opposite Parties, on failure to comply with the impugned order within the stipulated period, in our opinion, is also on the higher side, which needs to be reduced to 12% per annum. To this extent also, the impugned order needs to be modified.
31. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.
32. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, is partly accepted, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is modified, to the extent, indicated hereunder;
(i) Direction No.17(i) in the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, to the extent of refunding Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area + Rs.9,920/- as service tax, Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and Rs.14,141/- as maintenance charges, to the respondent/complainant, is set aside.
(ii) The appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.85,131/- as pre-EMI to the respondent/complainant (claimed by him) alongwith interest @10% per annum, from the date of respective dates of deposit, till realization, within 45 days from the date(s) of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(iii) The appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment due to delay in handing over of possession of the flat and changing the place of parking, instead of Rs.1 Lac, as awarded by the District Forum in Direction No.17(ii) of the impugned order, within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(iv) Direction No.17 (iii) in the impugned order, awarding an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs to the respondent/complainant, is upheld.
(v) In the event of non-compliance of directions in Para 32 (ii) and (iii) above within the stipulated period, the amounts mentioned therein shall be payable by the appellants/Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.
(vi) All other directions, given and reliefs granted by the District Forum, in the impugned order, subject to the modifications, aforesaid, which are contrary to and, in variance of this order, shall stand set aside.
33. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
34. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
October 17, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Ad