State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Navneet Bhullar vs The Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd. on 19 February, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 175 of 2014 Date of Institution : 04.12.2014 Date of Decision : 19/02/2015 Navneet Bhullar d/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhullar, H.No.607, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh. ......Complainant V e r s u s The Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd., Corp. Office: SCO No.110-111, Sector 8, Chandigarh, presently at The Shalimar Mall, Sector 5, Panchkula. The Managing Director, the Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd., Corp. Office: SCO No.110-111, Sector 8, Chandigarh, presently at The Shalimar Mall, Sector 5, Panchkula ......Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT The facts, in brief, are that the complainant moved an application for registration for the allotment of a commercial showroom, in an upcoming shopping mall, to be constructed, by the Opposite Parties, in Industrial Area, Mohali. It was stated that the complainant intended to use the said showroom, for running her business, to earn her livelihood, by way of self employment. The total price of the showroom was Rs.29.70 lacs. Alongwith the application, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, as required by the Opposite Parties, which was duly acknowledged vide acknowledgment slip dated 12.02.2006 Annexure P-3. The said application was accepted by the Opposite Parties, and acceptance-cum demand letter dated 01.01.2007 Annexure P-4, was issued, in favour of the complainant. The complainant was, thus, allotted a showroom of Category 'D', with super area of 300 square feet. It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered within 2 years, from the issuance of acceptance-cum demand letter dated 01.01.2007 Annexure P-4. It was further stated that the complainant, in total, deposited a sum of Rs.19 lacs, upto 31.03.2008, with the Opposite Parties, on various dates, towards the part price of the aforesaid showroom, and receipts regarding the receipt of the said amount were issued by them. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession.
The complainant personally visited the office of the Opposite Parties, and sought clarification, from them, about the schedule of completion of construction of the showroom, and handing over of the same, to her. It was further stated that, by the stipulated date of delivery of possession, no progress regarding the construction of showroom, had been made. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know about a new advertisement, issued by the Opposite Parties, in a reputed newspaper, about the showrooms of the same shopping mall. As per that advertisement, the scheme commenced on 12.10.2007, and closed on 26.10.2007. According to the said advertisement, a new time frame was fixed for handing over the possession by October 2009, instead of January 2009, which was earlier committed by the Opposite Parties.
It was further stated that though a period of two years, expired in January 2009, yet there was no sign of any construction, with regard to the showroom, at the site. It was further stated that when possession of the showroom, in question, was not delivered to the complainant, left with no other alternative, legal notice dated 13.11.2014 Annexure P-7, was served upon the Opposite Parties, for the refund of amount, deposited by her, alongwith interest, but to no avail. It was further stated that even till the date of filing the complaint, no progress, in the construction of showrooms, had been made.
It was further stated that neither possession was delivered to the complainant upto January 2009, nor the refund of amount was made. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Parties, misled the complainant, that possession of the showroom shall be delivered to her, within two years, from the date of allotment i.e. by January 2009, and fleeced her of her hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.19 lacs, but failed to abide by the commitment. 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 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.19 lacs, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.
The Opposite Parties, put in appearance, on 12.01.2015, through their Counsel, Sh. Arun Kumar. In their written version, the Opposite Parties pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that this Commission has got no pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a 'consumer', as she failed to disclose to this Commission, as to for what business, she booked the showroom with the Opposite Parties, meaning thereby that she booked the same, for commercial purpose, for carrying on commercial activities, on a large scale, with a view to earn huge profits. It was further pleaded that the requisite fee, had not been paid by the complainant, and, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, on the ground that an Arbitration Clause existed, in the application form, and, in case of any dispute, the matter was required to be referred to the Arbitration. It was admitted that the complainant booked the showroom, with the Opposite Parties. Allotment of the showroom was also admitted. It was also admitted that price of the showroom was Rs.29,70,000/-. It was also admitted that an amount of Rs.19 lacs, was deposited by the complainant, towards part price of the showroom, which was booked by her. It was also admitted that possession of the showroom was to be delivered, within a period of two years, from the date of issuance of acceptance-cum-demand letter. It was stated that completion of the project was delayed, as the other buyers, like the complainant, had not paid the due instalments, due to which, the Opposite Parties suffered a huge loss, as they had to pay penalty/compensation, to various customers, as per Clause 12 of the application form. It was further stated that, as per Clause 12 of the application form, a period of two years, for delivery of possession of the unit, in question, could be extended due to force majeure circumstances. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were making all out efforts, to complete the remaining finishing work and other works. It was further stated that delay, in the project, was never in the interest of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that possession of the unit, in question, would be delivered very soon. It was further stated that, however, in case of delay, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay damages/ penalty/compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq.feet per month, in terms of Clause 12 of the application form, which they were ready to pay to the complainant, till the delivery of actual possession of the unit, in question, to her. It was further stated that the new advertisements were issued, in order to sell the unsold showrooms only. 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.
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.
The complainant, in support of her case, submitted her own affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Mr.R.K. Aggarwal, their Managing Director, by way of evidence.
We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant falls within the definition of a consumer or not. It may be stated here, that the complainant, in paragraph no.1 of her complaint, in clear-cut terms, stated that she had booked the showroom, in question, for using the same, to earn her livelihood, by way of self-employment, by running a business. This fact was also corroborated by her, through her affidavit, submitted by way of evidence. Not only this, in reply to the interrogatories, served upon the complainant, she (complainant), by way of affidavit dated 16.02.2015, made it clear that she is aged 38 years, and that her place of birth is Chandigarh. She further deposed, in her aforesaid affidavit, that she is unmarried, and her parents have already died. She further deposed that she is having her flat at Gurgaon and is maintaining her house, from the income of some agricultural land, owned by her. She further deposed in the said affidavit that presently she is unemployed. She further deposed, in the said affidavit, that she deposited the amount of Rs.19 lacs, from the sale proceeds of her agricultural land, and intended to use the showroom, to earn her livelihood, by way of self employment. The size of the showroom being 300 square feet (i.e. about 33 square yards) is very small. The price thereof is also not so huge. No commercial activity on a large scale could be carried on in such a small sized showroom. This fact is also suggestive of the fact that the showroom was purchased for running some small business to earn livelihood, by way of self-employment. On the other hand, no evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, to the contrary, that the showroom, in question, was booked by the complainant, with a view to give the same on rent, and not for the purpose of using the same, to earn her livelihood, by way of self-employment. Even, no evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainant was a property dealer and engaged in the sale and purchase of commercial property, with an intention to gain huge profits. No evidence was also produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainant was running any other commercial activity, on a large scale, and earning huge profits, therefrom. No evidence was also produced, by the Opposite Parties, to prove that the complainant was already having thriving business and earning huge profits. Even nothing contrary to the contents of the affidavit dated 16.02.2015, sworn by the complainant, was brought, on record, by the Opposite Parties, to prove their version, in this regard. In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Usha Vohra, IV (2009) CPJ 305 (NC), the complainant was allotted a booth in Sector 10, Panchkula, on 15.10.1991, for which she had paid a total consideration of Rs.8,29,354.50, till 31.12.1996. There was no averment, in the complaint, that the same was purchased by the complainant, for earning her livelihood, by way of self employment. The complaint was decided, in favour of the complainant, by the District Forum, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the excess amount charged. An appeal was preferred, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a Revision Petition was filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. During the course of Revision Petition, an argument was advanced, that since the complainant was allotted booth, which was obviously for commercial purpose, she did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid case, held that the mere fact that the respondent/complainant, had been allotted a booth, no conclusive finding, could be recorded about the same (booth) having been allotted for commercial consideration, and, not for earning livelihood, as that would require a lot of consideration to unsuit her. In Remington Rand of India Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Pioneer Typewriter Co. I (1996) CPJ 317 (NC), a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the complainant purchased a Paper Copier Machine for Rs.1,43,000/-, from the Opposite Party, which did not give satisfactory service. No averment, was made, in the complaint, that the Paper Copier Machine, had been purchased by the complainant, for earning livelihood, by way of self employment. Ultimately, the machine became defective, and the complaint for replacement of the same, was filed. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided the complaint, in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the Opposite Party/appellant, which took up the plea, that the complainant/respondent, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as the machine was purchased by it, for running the business, on a large scale, for earning huge profits. In these circumstances, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the firm of the complainant, was indeed a small unit, and just because it was a partnership firm, it could not be concluded that it was engaged, in a large scale commercial activity, for earning huge profits. It was further held that since loan was obtained by the complainant/ respondent, from the Bank, for purchasing the machine, which fact, in itself, clearly proved that the complainant was to run a small venture, to earn its livelihood, by way of self employment. In Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation IV (2008) CPJ 294, a case decided by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, an application for allotment of an industrial plot, was made by the complainant, but no averment was made, in the complaint, by the complainant, that it intended to purchase the same with a view to earn livelihood, by way of self-employment. However, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, held that when the industrial plot was not allotted to the complainant, it sought refund, and, under these circumstances, it fell within the definition of a 'consumer' As per the explanation appended to Clause (ii) of Section 2(d) of the Act 'commercial purpose' does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her, and services availed of by him/her exclusively, for the purpose of earning his/her livelihood, by means of self-employment. It is not the value of the goods, that matters, but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self-employment" make the intention of the Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought, must be used, by the buyer himself, by employing himself, for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis that a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, to ply it, himself, on hire, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck, who purchases it, for plying it as a public carrier, by himself, would be a consumer. A person, who purchases a lathe machine, or other machine, to operate it himself, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. In the above illustrations, if such a buyer, takes the assistance of one or two persons, to assist/help him, in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine, or other machine, to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation, flowing from the expressions "used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that the complainant falls within the definition of a consumer, and the complaint involves the consumer dispute, as she hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for the purchase of aforesaid unit for earning her livelihood, by means of self-employment. The plea, having been taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, placed reliance on Shri Harnam Singh Vs. Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. and others, Revision Petition No.1129 of 2012, decided on 29.05.2012, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in support of his contention, that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. In Shri Harnam Singh's case (supra), the price of the showroom was Rs.80 lacs i.e. very huge. The size of the same could also be said to be very large. The complainant, in that case, failed to prove, as to wherefrom the amount of Rs.80 lacs, came to his hands. The complainant in that case also did not state, as to what was his occupation. He also did not state in the complaint that he purchased the showroom for earning his livelihood, by way of self-employment. In Shri Harnam Singh's case (supra), reliance was also placed by the National Commission, on Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ardes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 299 (NC) and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Diksha Enterprises, III (2010) CPJ 333 (NC). It may be stated here that, in Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd.' case (supra), the complainant being a Private Limited Company, booked a showroom, with the Opposite Parties. When the possession was not given, it filed a complaint, alleging deficiency, in rendering service. It was, under these circumstances, held that the purchase of space by a Pvt. Ltd. Company was for commercial purpose to earn huge profits and the complainant was not a consumer. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra), a plot was allotted to the complainant, a Limited Company, for setting up a factory, but the same was cancelled subsequently. It was held that the allotment to the Limited Company was for a commercial purpose, for setting up a factory to earn huge profits and, therefore, the complainant was not a consumer, under the Act. The facts and circumstances of the cases, referred to, in this paragraph and relied upon by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being entirely different, no help, therefore, can be drawn by him (Counsel for the Opposite Parties), therefrom. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got the pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint or not. It may be stated here, that the basic price of the unit, in question, was Rs.29.70 lacs. The complainant has sought refund of the amount of Rs.19 lacs, deposited by her, towards part price of the unit, in question, plus Rs.2 lacs, as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, plus other reliefs. The aggregate value of the services/goods/ refund sought, plus (+) compensation, and cost, claimed by the complainant, in the complaint, [excluding the interest claimed @18% P.A.] fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Act, was not maintainable, before this Commission, on account of the reason, that an Arbitration Clause existed, in the application form. With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, is required to be made, which reads as under;
"3.Act not in derogation of any other law.--
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The mere existence of arbitration clause, in the application form, would not oust the Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC). In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
No doubt, an objection was also taken by the Opposite Parties, in paragraph number 6 of their written version, that since the requisite Court fees, has not been paid by the complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, does not merit acceptance. It may be stated here, that according to Rule 9A (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, if the total value of goods or services and the compensation claimed, is above twenty lacs and upto fifty lacs, the amount of fee payable is Rs.2000/-. As stated above, the aggregate value of the services/refund sought plus (+) compensation, and cost, claimed by the complainant, in the instant complaint, came to be around Rs.21 lacs, and, as such, fell above twenty lacs and upto fifty lacs, meaning thereby that the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as fees. It is evident, from the record, that a sum of Rs.2000/-, vide Demand Draft No.621224 dated 25.11.2014, was deposited by the complainant. The correct fee was, thus, paid by the complainant. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant booked a showroom, referred to above, with the Opposite Parties. There is also hardly any dispute that the total amount of Rs.19 lacs, on various dates, towards part price of the showroom, was deposited with the Opposite Parties. Admittedly, as per Clause 12 of the application form, possession of the showroom was to be delivered within two years, from the date of issuance of acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 01.01.2007, Annexure P-4, subject to force majeure circumstances. It was admitted by the Opposite Parties, that possession was to be delivered, on or before 01.01.2009. Admittedly, possession of the showroom has not even so far been delivered to the complainant. By not delivering possession of the showroom, within the period of two years i.e. upto 01.01.2009, and even till today, the Opposite Parties misled the complainant, by making a false promise. The Opposite Parties were, thus, not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that as per Clause 12 of the application form, a period of two years could be extended due to force majeure circumstances. It may be stated here, that it was for the Opposite Parties, to clearly explain, in the written reply, as to what were those circumstances, which were beyond their control, as a result whereof, the construction could not be completed, in time, and possession could not be delivered by 01.01.2009. In the written reply, the only plea taken up by the Opposite Parties, was to the effect that other buyers of the showrooms, in the same project, like the complainant, did not make the payment of instalments, in time, as a result whereof, there was delay in the completion of project. It may be stated here, that the complainant, in this case, has already deposited a huge amount of Rs.19 lacs, towards part price of the showroom. When the complainant found that there was no progress, in the construction of project, at the site, it was not obligatory upon her, to pay the remaining instalments, until a firm assurance had been held out to her, that the project would be completed in the very near future. As stated above, till date, the project has not been completed, nor possession of the showroom has been delivered to the complainant. Since, the Opposite Parties failed to adhere to the terms and conditions, contained in the application form, they could not blame the complainant, for not making payment of the remaining sale consideration/instalments. Admittedly, the instalments against the price of the showroom, were to be paid, as per the construction linked plan. Since, the construction was not being undertaken, as per schedule, if the complainant did not pay the remaining instalments, she could not be held responsible for delay, in the completion of project. The Opposite Parties, therefore, failed to prove, any circumstance, beyond their control, due to which the construction was delayed. In Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), no development work was carried out, at the site. Thus, the payment of further installments was stopped by the complainant. It was, under these circumstances, held that the builder could not be allowed to take shelter, under the agreement clause, to usurp the money, deposited by the complainant. It was further held that the builder cannot forfeit the money, paid by the complainant, on account of his own fault, in not carrying out the development work. Ultimately, the National Commission, ordered the refund of amount with interest. The principle of law, laid down, in Prasad Homes Private Limited's case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that the plea, referred to above, taken up by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, appears to be false. The said plea was taken up by them, just with a view to cover up their lapse, and to deny the refund of amount, claimed by the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected.
Although, a period of more than six years, from 01.01.2009, the date committed for handing over possession of the showroom, to the complainant, has lapsed, yet the construction is not complete. No doubt, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, submitted that, construction at the site, was in full swing and possession of the unit, in question, would be delivered very soon. However, such a submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, cannot be taken into consideration. Such a plea may be another excuse, on the part of the Opposite Parties, to delay the refund of hard earned money already deposited with them, by the complainant.
The Counsel for the Opposite Parties, submitted that the Opposite Parties were ready to pay compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq. feet, per month of the super area, for the period of delay, as per Clause 12 of the application form, and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to the refund of amount, alongwith interest and compensation. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, does not appeal to reason. If compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. feet, per month of the super area, would justify the claim of the complainant, and no further relief is given that would give unnecessary advantage to the Opposite Parties, because they may still neglect to raise construction for a number of years, by simply paying Rs.10/- per sq.ft. per month of the super area i.e. Rs.3000/- per month. The Opposite Parties must be getting very high returns, on the amount of Rs.19 lacs, which was deposited with them, from time to time, by the complainant, by investing the same, in some business. Even the modest interest @8% p.a., which the Opposite Parties may be earning on Rs.19 lacs, comes to Rs.12,666/- per month i.e., much more than the amount which they are ready to pay @ Rs.10/- per sq.feet, per month of the super area. It may be stated here, that at the time of arguments, the Counsel for the complainant, in clear- cut terms submitted that the complainant was only interested in the refund of amount, with interest and compensation. Therefore, the compensation aforesaid, might have been said to be sufficient, in case, the complainant had specifically sought delivery of possession of the showroom. The complainant is, thus, entitled to the refund of amount with interest @12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits.
The complainant was not only deprived of the use of her hard earned money, for a long time, which was deposited with the Opposite Parties, but she also suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, as till date not even a single penny, has been refunded to her, nor possession of the showroom has been offered or delivered. For such physical harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and escalation in the price of showroom, the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/-.
No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
(i) The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.19 lacs, deposited by the complainant, to her with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits, till realization.
(ii) The Opposite Parties are further jointly and severally directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.70,000/-, for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, escalation in prices and for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, by neither handing over possession of the showroom, by the committed date, nor refunding the amount.
(iii) The Opposite Parties are further jointly and severally directed to pay, cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant.
(iv) The aforesaid directions, shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in clause (i) above, with penal interest @ 15% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits till realization and interest @12% P.A., on the amount mentioned in Clause (ii) above, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
February 19, 2015 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.