State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohinder Kumar Thakur vs Unitech Ltd. on 22 February, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017
Date of Institution : 27.07.2017
Date of Reserve : 12.02.2018
Date of Decision : 22.02.2018
Mr. Mohinder Kumar Thakur S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Das Thakur, R/o
House No. 2255, Sector 71, Mohali.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Unitech Ltd. through its Managing Director, 6,
Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi - 110017
2. M/s Unitech Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Real Estate
Division, Ground Floor, Signature Towers, South City-1, N.H.-88,
Gurgaon - 122001, Haryana.
3. M/s Unitech Ltd. Through its Managing Director, S.C.O. No.
189-190-191, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh.
4. Alice Developers Private Limited, Through its Managing
Director, 6, Community Centre, Basement, Saket, New Delhi -
110017
....Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 2
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. J.P. Singh, Advocate
For opposite parties No.1-3: Ms. V.H. Singh, Advocate
For opposite party No.4: Service dispensed with vide order
dated 2.11.2017
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that Ops had raised their project at Gardens Galleria, Sector 106, Mohali. The complainant had applied for one shop and Unit No. 0030 in that project having an area of 515.01 sq. ft. under customer code No. MG0024 for total sale consideration of Rs. 22,66,044/- was allotted to the complainant. Buyer's agreement was executed between the parties on 16.8.2010 and allotment letter dated 16.8.2010 was also issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant made payments as per the schedule given by the Ops. Till date the complainant have made payment of Rs. 9,30,550/- towards the abovesaid shop for which receipts were issued by the Ops. According to Clause No. 4.1 of the buyer's agreement, Ops had agreed to deliver the possession of the Unit within 21 months from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 16.8.2010 but till date no possession has been offered to the complainant. It has been further averred in the complaint that presently complainant is doing a private job and had come forward Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 3 to purchase the said unit with a purpose to have his own shop as sole source of income, after retiring from the employment. The complainant made several visits and called to the Ops to know the status of the site but to the utter dismay of the complainant, Ops have miserably failed to apprise the complainant with proper information and due to this reason, the balance money was not paid by the complainant as no construction/development work as promised was initiated by the Ops. Aggrieved from the hands of the Ops, the complainant finally got served a legal notice dated 13.8.2016 upon the Ops, giving clear cut time to the Ops to deliver the possession within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice or in the alternative to refund a sum of Rs. 9,03,550/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs alongwith litigation expenses but to no result. Hence, the complaint seeking directions against the Ops as under:-
(i) To handover the possession of the above stated agreed site and receive the balance consideration amount from the complainant, if any, as per the allotment letter dt. 16.8.2010 within a time period of 3 months from date of appearance before this Hon'ble Commission by the Ops;
(ii) Alongwith compensation for mental anguish and physical harassment to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-
OR In the alternative, if in the eventuality, Ops are unable to provide the complainant with the possession of the Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 4 agreed site within aforesaid time then the Ops be directed:-
i) To pay / refund Rs. 9,03,550/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. amounting to Rupees plus interest @ 18% p.a. pendete-lite till its realization;
ii) To pay sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of mental agony, trauma and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 55,000/- towards costs of litigation.
iii) To pass any other orders or directions which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the present circumstances of the case.
2. On 2.11.2017, counsel for the complainant made a statement to dispense with the service of Op No. 4 and accordingly, order to this effect was passed, as Op No. 4 is just a proforma Op.
3. Upon notice, Op Nos. 1 to 3 appeared and filed the written reply through Sh. Lalit Gupta, Legal Executive of the Ops taking preliminary objections that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint as buyer's agreement was executed between the parties at New Delhi; the payment was made by the to the Gurgaon Office and from there the payment receipts were issued; the Commission Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 5 does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the total claim of the complainant is less than Rs. 20 Lacs; the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the shop in question was purchased for commercial purposes; there is no Consumer Dispute in view of the facts of the complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in view of Arbitration Clause No. 17 of the Agreement to Sell and the matter is to be finally decided by the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On merits, the preliminary objections were again reiterated that the complainant is not a consumer. The booking of the shop is a matter of record. The period of 21 months from the date of agreement to deliver the possession was a tentative time period. In Clause No. 4.5 of the agreement, it was clearly stipulated that this period is a tentative time, subject to force majeure circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Op. Therefore, the agreement clauses are to be read in toto and not separation from one to another. The Ops could not deliver the possession due to Global meltdown of the economy due to which various investors refrain from any kind of investment in India and there is a total cash crunch throughout. Further Ops were facing problems with regard to provide electricity in the said area as PSPCL was raising the objections one after the other. Ops were to provide the Electricity Sub Station of 66 KV in the area and in this regard, request was made to the PSPCL to provide atleast 1 MW connection to the project in 2010 but PSPCL raised various formalities on the part of Ops for inner supply of Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 6 1 MW connection, which was duly done by the Company in 2011, however, PSPCL continued in imposing various objections regarding release of 1 MW connection. Vide letter dated 2.3.2015 and 19.12.2014, they imposed the condition of Bank Guarantee for taking connection of 1 MW. The Ops sorted out all these issue with PSPCL and deposited Bank Guarantee vide letter dated 8.1.2016. The Ops also applied for partial completion of the project vide letter dated 3.2.2016 on account of objections raised by PSPCL, rest of the development work also delayed. It was denied that there was any monetary loss or harassment to the complainant due to delay of delivery of the possession. As per Clause 4.3 of the agreement, Ops were liable for making payment of compensation to the complainant for delay in handing over the possession. The complainant has also failed to disclose regarding the present job or his qualification regarding any kind of business. The payment of Rs. 9,30,550/- has been admitted. It has been denied that the complainant visited the project of the Ops or made frequent telephone calls. It has also been denied that there was no response from the side of the Ops. As per Clause 2.5, the earnest money will be 10% of the total consideration of the unit, which the Ops are entitled to deduct, in case the refund is to be made to the complainant. It has been denied that the complainant is entitled to interest @ 18% on the deposited amount. It has been denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 7
4. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of their complaint. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CA and documents Exs. C-1 to C-12. On the other hand, Ops have tendered affidavit of Lalit Gupta, Auth. Representative and documents Exs. Op-1/A to Op-1/17.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the averments in the complaint, written reply filed by the Ops No. 1 to 3, evidence and documents on the record.
6. Ops No. 1 to 3 in its written reply has taken the objection that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint as the agreement to sell was executed between the parties at New Delhi and payments were received by Gurgaon office. No doubt that the agreement to sell was issued by New Delhi office of the Ops or the receipts were issued by the Ops of their Gurgaon Office but it has not been explained from where the payments were made to the Ops. Moreover, the property is located at Mohali and there are averments that before booking of the unit and during the completion of the project, the complainant had visited the site at Mohali, therefore, a part of cause of action arises at Mohali, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. According to Clause 17(2)(c) of the Act, a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission then this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. This preposition was not rebutted by the counsel for the Ops and it is an admitted fact that property is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 8 therefore, we do not see any merit in the objection raised by the counsel for the Ops and hold that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
7. An objection has been raised by the counsel for the Ops that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the claim of the complainant is less than Rs. 20 Lacs. As per Article 2 of the agreement to sell, it was agreed that Rs. 22,66,044/- is the total sale consideration for the purchase of the unit. For the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, total sale consideration of the unit plus compensation, if any, is to be considered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in 2017(1) CPJ 1 "Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd." This judgment has not been denied by the counsel for the Ops and in case a total sale consideration is more than Rs. 20 Lacs and further compensation amount, which can be calculated in the form of interest is to be added and in case interest on the deposited amount is added, it will certainly go beyond Rs. 20 Lacs and less than Rs. 1 Crore, therefore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction. Counsel for the Ops could not convince how this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Commission. The objection has been taken only for the purpose of objection.
8. The next objection taken by the Op Nos. 1 to 3 is that the complainant is not a consumer and that dispute in question is not a consumer dispute. A plea has been taken by the counsel for the Ops that the complainant had booked a shop with the Ops and Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 9 is to run commercial activity, which is expressly excluded from the domain of the consumer as per the definition of consumer given under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. For ready reference, the definition of the consumer is as under:-
"2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(d) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 10 the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;"
In view of the explanation attached to this Section, it has been provided that commercial purpose does not include use of goods by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, in case commercial unit is to be used by the complainant to earn his livelihood, for the purpose of self employment then in that eventuality even commercial unit is not excluded from the definition of the consumer as defined above. It has been stated by the complainant in para No. 5 of the complaint that the complainant is currently in a private job and he came forward to purchase this unit to run his own shop to earn his livelihood after retiring from the employment. Whereas counsel for the Ops in the written reply has taken the objection that the complainant has not explained his qualification and what type of business he intends to run in the shop. It is not pre-requisite as per the definition of the consumer as defined under the Act for the consumer to define his qualification or the nature of business. Whatever will be the qualifications of the complainant that type of business can be run by the complainant. Counsel for the Ops has not rebutted that the complainant has any other commercial unit with him, therefore, in case the unit was booked by the complainant for the purpose of self employment to earn his livelihood then we are of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 11 of the consumer and the objection raised by the Ops is without any merit.
9. Whether the present dispute between the parties is a consumer dispute. The complainant has booked shop with Ops and Ops after constructing the same was to be given to the complainant within a specified period for consideration. Construction service is covered under the definition of service defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, which reads as under:-
(o) "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;"
It includes construction services, therefore, we are of the opinion that the present dispute is a consumer dispute, in case the Ops failed to render the services as per the agreement.
10. It has been further contended that according to Article 17 of the agreement, in case of any dispute between the parties, the matter was required to be referred to the Arbitrator as provided under that Clause, therefore, the matter is to be adjudicated under Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 12 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and this Commission does not have any jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In case the Ops were really interested that the matter should be referred to the Arbitrator then they should have moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alongwith the written reply but no such application was filed. Otherwise under Section 3 of the CP Act, additional remedy has been provided under the Act, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Consumer Fora are duly competent to deal with the complaint despite having the arbitration clause in the agreement. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea taken by the Ops that consumer complaint is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement.
11. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had booked one shop with Ops for a total sale consideration of Rs. 22,66,044/- and agreement to sell Ex. C-1 was executed between the parties. First 30% was to be paid within a specific time and that amount has already been paid by the complainant to the Ops and the remaining amount was to be paid as per the stage of the construction as per payment plan given to the complainant alongwith the agreement, which reads as under:-
Annexure - 'A' Payment Plan Particulars Due Date Percentage of Consideration At the time of Booking 16.08.2010 10% Within 2 Month of Booking 16.10.2010 10% Within 4 Month of Booking 16.12.2010 10% On start of Excavation - - 10% Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 13 On start of GF Roof - - 10% On start of First Floor - - 10% On start of Second Floor - - 10% On start of Third Floor - - 10% On start of Finishing - - 10% On Final Notice - - 10% On the basis of agreement, shop No. 0030 was allotted to the complainant as per allotment letter dated 16.8.2010 Ex. C-2. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 9,30,550/-, which has not been disputed by the Ops. It has been further contended by the counsel for the complainant that no further demand was raised by the Ops as they have not started the construction or construction was not at the stage under which further payment was required to be paid by the complainant to the Ops. In the written reply filed by the Ops, it has been contended that the period of 21 months was subject to force majeure circumstances. The force majeure circumstances has been stated as a global meltdown of the economy and that there was a total crunch throughout. The Ops are to raise the construction after collecting the money from the various allottees for which they had booked and a part of the payment was received by them. Therefore, total crunch had no effect upon the construction activities of the Ops and it cannot be considered as a force majeure circumstance. With regard to any dispute with PSPCL, in case ultimately the Ops have admitted the conditions of the PSPCL, those could be admitted earlier also. PSPCL is also regulated under certain rules and in case certain formalities are required to be completed, Ops were required to complete it, which Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 14 they ultimately completed it. Therefore, again this cannot be stated to be a force majeure circumstance. It has been further stated that they had applied for completion certificate on 3.2.2016. In case the partial completion certificate has not been given by the Competent Authority, it indicates that they might not have completed according to the terms as referred in the CLU/Layout plan. The counsel for the Ops has also not placed on the record CLU/Layout plan under which certain conditions are given to the builder to complete it before getting the completion certificate. In case the construction is not completed within time then it amounts to deficiency in services and the complainant has a right to ask for the refund. A reference has been taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as II (2014) CPJ 131 "PUDA versus Kanwalpreet Singh" that in case there is delay in handing over the possession, it amounts to deficiency in service and refund order can be passed. A reference has also been made to I (2017) CPJ 513 (NC) "Neha Suri versus Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd." In that case, the possession of the flat was not given as agreed. It amounts to deficiency in service. Amount deposited alongwith interest was ordered to be refunded. Similar order was passed in I (2017) CPJ 113 "Vishal Issar v. Park Wood Developers Pvt. Ltd.".
This Commission has already held in Consumer Complaint No. 164 of 2016 "Harmit Singh Arora versus M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited", decided on 2.2.2017 against the same opposite party that in case possession of the apartment has not been given as agreed then it amounts to deficiency in service and that the Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 15 complainants are not bound to pay further payments when the project is not coming at the site and refund alongwith interest order was ordered. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in services on the part of Ops and in case the construction is not completed within the agreed time then the complainant has a right to withdraw from the scheme and to seek the refund.
12. It has been further argued by the counsel for the Ops that according to Clause No. 4.3, in case there is delay in delivery of the possession then the Ops are liable to pay the penalty as per Clause 4.3 i.e. @ Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. per month of super area from the date of delay till the possession was to be offered. Whereas it has been contended by the counsel for the complainant that in case of late payment, the Ops are claiming interest @ 18% then similar treatment be given to the complainant. It is one sided agreement and in case of default on the part of complainant, he has to pay 18% interest whereas Ops are to pay just 3 to 4%. This question has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 427 of 2014 "Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd." decided on 8.6.2015 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed as under:-
"However, a term of a contract, in my view will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary but was given under a sort of compulsion on account of the person giving consent being left with no other choice or if the said term amounts to an unfair trade practice. It Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 16 was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that the term providing for payment of a nominal compensation such as Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area having become the order of the day in the contracts designed by big builders, a person seeking to buy an apartment is left with no option but to sign on the dotted lines since the rejection of such term by him would mean cancellation of the allotment. He further submitted that a person seeking to acquire a built up flat instead of purchasing a plot and then raising construction on it, therefore, is not in a position to protest resist the inclusion of such a term in the Buyer's Agreement, and has to rely upon the reputation of the builder, particularly if he is a big builder such as Unitech Ltd. He also submitted that the format of the Buyer's Agreement is never shown to the purchasers at the time of booking the apartment and if he refuses to sign the Buyer's Agreement on the format provided by the builder, not only will he lose the booking, even the booking amount/earnest money paid by him will be forfeited by the builder. I find merit in the above referred submissions of the learned counsel. A person who, for one reason or the other, either cannot or does not want to buy a plot and raise construction of his own, has to necessarily go in for purchase of the built up flat. It is only natural and logical for him to look for an apartment in a project being developed by a big builder such as the opposite party in these complaints. Since the contracts of all the big builders contain a term for payment of a specified sum as compensation in the event of default on the part of the builder in handing over possession of the flat to the buyer and the flat compensation offered by all big builders is almost a nominal compensation being Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 17 less than 25% of the estimated cost of construction per month, the flat buyer is left with no option but to sign the Buyer's Agreement in the format provided by the builder. No sensible person will volunteer to accept compensation constituting about 2-3% of his investment in case of delay on the part of the contractor, when he is made to pay 18% compound interest if there is delay on his part in making payment.
It can hardly be disputed that a term of this nature is wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The builder charges compound interest @ 18% per annum in the event of the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to him but seeks to pay less than 3% per annum of the capital investment, in case he does not honour his part of the contract by defaulting in giving timely possession of the flat to the buyer. Such a term in the Buyer's Agreement also encourages the builder to divert the funds collected by him for one project, to another project being undertaken by him. He thus, is able to finance a new project at the cost of the buyers of the existing project and that too at a very low cost of finance. If the builder is to take loan from Banks or Financial Institutions, it will have to pay the interest which the Banks and Financial Institutions charge on term loan or cash credit facilities etc. The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this very project. This gives credence to the Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 18 allegation of the complainants that their money has been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r) (1) of the Act that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices enumerated in Section 2(r) (1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be evident from the use of word "including" before the words "any of the following practices".
The same view was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 347 of 2014, "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd." decided on 14.8.2015. A reference has also been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K.A. Nagmani Vs. Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board", C.A. No. 6730-6731, decided on 19.9.2012. In that case, the District Forum has allowed interest @ 12% p.a. and its appeal was dismissed by the State Commission as well as the Hon'ble National Commission and after relying upon the judgment of "Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh", (2004) 5 SCC 65, the interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount was allowed alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Against the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd.", C.C. No. 347 of 2014 (supra), Op preferred the appeal before the Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 19 Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 35562 of 2015, decided on 11.12.2015 and passed the order as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the appeal. The judgment does not warrant any interference.
The Civil Appeal is dismissed."
13. However, it was further observed by the Hon'ble National Commission in another judgment 2017(3) CLT 520 (NC) "Ankur Goswami versus Supertech and another" wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed that this clause in the allotment letter would be applied to the case where allottee is seeking possession of the flat and where allottee is not seeking refund of the amount. However, in the present case, the allottee is seeking the refund, therefore, the penalty @ Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. will not be applicable. Further under Rule 17 i.e. Rate of Interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, it has been provided as under:-
"17. Rate of Interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement. - The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub- section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment." Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 20
In the above rule it has been observed to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. In number of similar complaints, we have allowed the interest @ 12% p.a. i.e. Consumer Complaint No. 386 of 2016 "Meenakshi Puri versus Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 28.11.2017 and 'Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 2017 "Lt. Gurnur Singh Mahiwal & Anr. Versus M/s Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 4.1.2018. Therefore, to be just and reasonable, the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 12% on the deposited amount.
14. No other point was argued.
15. Sequel to the above, we allow the complaint and direct Ops No. 1 to 4 as under:-
(i) to refund a sum of Rs. 9,30,550/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% from the various dates of deposit till actual payment;
(ii) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant; and
(iii) to pay Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The above directions be complied by Ops No. 1 to 4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Ops.
Consumer Complaint No. 620 of 2017 21
16. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
17. The counsel for the parties/parties are directed to collect free certified copy of the order from the office of the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of pronouncement.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER February 22, 2018.
as