State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajinder Singh vs Punjab Urban Planning & Development ... on 11 June, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019
Date of institution : 06.11.2019
Reserved on : 08.06.2020
Date of decision : 11.06.2020
Ajinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Piara Singh, R/o Village Pipal, P.O.
Chamkaur Sahib, Distt. Ropar.
Mobile:94172-17914, E-mail ID:[email protected]
....Complainant
Versus
1.Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Street No.2, Ferozepur Road, opposite GLADA, Ranjit Nagar, New Professor Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab, 142021, through Chief Administrator/ Estate Officer.
2. Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Street No.2, Ferozepur Road, opposite GLADA, Ranjit Nagar, New Professor Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab, 142021, through Chief Administrator/ Estate Officer.
Mobile:0161-2457469, 2460924, 2460804 E-mail ID:[email protected] ....Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:
For the complainant : Sh. Sethi Kumar, Advocate for Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate.
For the opposite parties: Sh. G.S. Arshi, Advocate.Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 2
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:
a) to deliver actual and physical possession of plot No.431, measuring 200 sq.yds. situated at Sugar Mill site, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, along with all facilities of a developed colony as projected and proposed in finally approved plan, within 3 months from the date of filing the present complaint, along with Occupation and Completion Certificate and further to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the deposited amount from 19.09.2015 (the date on which the opposite parties were required to deliver possession of the allotted plot, as per allotment letter dated 19.09.2015 Ex.C-9) till offer and delivery of possession.
OR in the alternative:
To refund the deposited amount of ₹16,81,250/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deposit till realization;
b) to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and
c) to pay ₹55,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Facts of the Complaint
2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that one Hardeep Kumar Jassi had applied for allotment of a residential plot to the opposite parties in their project launched at Sugar Mill, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, by submitting application form No.9810. He was Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 3 declared successful in the draw of lots held in January, 2013, as per letter dated 08.03.2013 Ex.C-1 received from State Bank of India, from whom he had taken loan of ₹1,70,000/-. Sh. Piara Singh, father of the complainant, entered into agreement dated 28.02.2013, Ex.C-2, with said Hardeep Kumar Jassi for purchase of said plot, agreeing to pay ₹1,70,000/- to Hardeep Kumar Jassi and to pay the remaining sale price of the plot. Father of the complainant paid the amount of ₹1,70,000/- to Hardeep Singh Jassi; who further paid the same to State Bank of India and certificate dated 09.04.2014 Ex.C-3 was issued by the Bank stating that loan account No.32684181285 for ₹1,70,000/- had been fully liquidated. After that, father of the complainant deposited a sum of ₹2,55,000/- with the opposite parties, vide demand draft dated 25.03.2013, Ex.C-4; for which receipt dated 26.03.2013 Ex.C-5 was issued by them. Thereafter, Sh. Piara Singh deposited two demand drafts of ₹42,500/- and ₹2,500/- dated 08.04.2013 Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 with them at the time of submitting application for transfer of plot in his favour. In lieu thereof, the opposite parties issued receipt dated 18.04.2013 for ₹45,000/- Ex.C-8. The opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 19.09.2015 Ex.C-9 in favour of Sh. Piara Singh, allotting plot No.431, measuring 200 sq.yds. situated in their project situated at Sugar Mill, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, on freehold basis. Total price of the plot was fixed as ₹17,00,000/-. Possession of the plot was to be offered within 90 days of issuance of the allotment letter, as per Clause-4 thereof. Father of the complainant had paid a total sum of ₹16,81,250/- to the opposite parties towards price of the plot, as per details given in Para No.8 of Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 4 the complaint. The opposite parties duly issued receipt dated 17.11.2015 Ex.C-13 for payment of ₹12,11,250/-. Thereafter, Sh. Piara Singh applied with the opposite parties for grant of "No Due Certificate", vide Acknowledgment Slip dated 24.11.2015 Ex.C-14. Thereafter, "No Due Certificate" dated 19.12.2015 Ex.C-15 was issued to him. Unfortunately, father of the complainant died on 10.10.2016 and his death certificate is Ex.C-16. Thereafter, on the basis of application submitted by the complainant, the plot, in question, was endorsed in his name, vide letter dated 06.11.2017 Ex.C-17. As per terms of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was to be delivered by 19.12.2015, but the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession, after obtaining Occupation and Completion Certificate, despite repeated visits and requests of the complainant. In fact, they did not complete the construction at site and failed to provide basic amenities. The opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession, due to not having ownership of the land in their name, as some dispute is going between them and the landowner. The complainant visited the site on 20.10.2019 and found that the construction was not completed, as is clear from photographs Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-21 and newspaper Ex.C-22. It was further found that entrance to the proposed project was not built. The connected roads from main road to the project inside the area, where the plot in question is situated, are also not laid. Only a kacha road exists at site, without raising any construction. Parks, market, electricity, sewerage treatment plant, water etc. are also not provided. The complainant purchased the plot for his personal use/living. Legal notice dated 15.10.2019 Ex.C-23 Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 5 was issued to the opposite parties, but without any result. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. He himself failed to take possession and made false statement qua material facts. The complaint is barred by time. On merits, facts regarding applying for allotment of plot by Hardeep Kumar Jassi, he being successful in draw of lots and taking loan from Bank by him were admitted. It was pleaded that Hardeep Kumar Jassi had furnished certificate, stating that EMD of account No.32684181285 for ₹1,70,000/- had been liquidated in full. He also furnished application for transfer of plot in favour of Piara Singh; which was transferred in his favour on 23.05.2013. It was denied that the amount of ₹2,55,000/- was deposited by Piara Singh. In fact, that amount was deposited by Hardeep Kumar Jassi, qua which receipt was issued in his name. Similarly, the amount of ₹45,000/- was also not deposited by Piara Singh, but was deposited by Hardeep Kumar Jassi, as the receipts of the same were issued in his name. It was admitted that the amount of ₹17,00,000/- has been received against the plot. After death of Piara Singh, the complainant submitted an application for transfer of plot, being legal heir of Sh. Piara Singh on the basis of his unregistered Will dated 27.06.2017. After following due procedure, ownership of the plot Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 6 was transferred in the name of the complainant on 06.11.2017, as per policy of the opposite parties qua transfer. Letter of Intent for allotment of plot measuring 200 sq.yds. was issued in the name of Hardeep Kumar Jassi on 13.03.2013. It was further pleaded that development works regarding civil, Public Health and electrical services at Old Sugar Mill (OUVGL) site at Jagraon, District Ludhiana were completed on 30.09.2015, as per certificate Ex.R-3 issued by DE (Civil), DE (Public Health) and DE (Electrical). Late Piara Singh or the complainant never approached the opposite parties for taking possession of the plot. Had the complainant approached for taking possession of the plot, the opposite parties would have delivered the same. It was denied that basic amenities have not been provided at the site. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were also denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Evidence of the Parties
4. To prove his claim, the complainant filed his own self attested affidavit, along with copies of documents i.e. letter dated 08.03.2013 Ex.C-1, agreement dated 26.01.2013, along with receipt of ₹1,70,000/- dated 28.02.2013, Ex.C-2, certificate dated 09.04.2015 Ex.C-3, demand draft dated 25.03.2013, Ex.C-4, receipt dated 26.03.2013 Ex.C-5, demand drafts of ₹42,500/- and ₹2,500/- dated 08.04.2013 Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, receipt dated 18.04.2013 for ₹45,000/- Ex.C-8, allotment letter dated 19.09.2015 Ex.C-9, demand drafts/receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13, acknowledgement slip Ex.C-14, No Due Certificate Ex.C-15, Death Certificate Ex.C-16, letter dated Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 7 06.11.2017 Ex.C-17, photographs Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-21, newspaper Ex.C-22, legal notice Ex.C-23 and postal receipt Ex.C-24.
5. The opposite parties filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Baljit Singh Walia, Estate Officer, along with copies of documents i.e. application for transfer of plot Ex.R-1, acknowledgment slip Ex.R-2 and certificate Ex.R-3.
Contentions of the Parties
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant and the record carefully.
7. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant are on the lines of the complaint. The sum and substance of arguments is that the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant within the stipulated period, despite receipt of entire sale price. The opposite parties kept on utilizing the amount deposited by the complainant and other allottees for their own cause, without bothering to develop the project and to deliver the possession. Even they failed to obtain the necessary approvals from the competent authorities before launching their project. Hence, due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the developments works at site have already been completed on 30.09.2015, as per certificate Ex.R-3 and all the basic amenities have been provided. However, the complainant or his father never approached them for taking the possession. The Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 8 complaint is time barred. All the requisite permissions/sanctions have been obtained by the opposite parties qua the project, in question, and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
10. So far as the plea of the opposite parties that the complaint is time barred, is concerned, admittedly the complainant made the payment of entire sale price of the plot, in question, to the opposite parties, but neither the possession of the same has been delivered to him till date, nor the amount so deposited by him has been refunded. It is now well settled that in such cases there is a continuous cause of action till the possession is delivered or the amount is refunded. Hon'ble National Commission in "Navin Sharma (Dr.) & others v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." 2016(2) CLT 457 has held that unless or until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. In para 8 of the said judgment it has been observed by the Hon'ble National Commission as under:-
"8. The first submission made by the counsel for the opposite party was that the case is barred by time. This argument was raised merely for the sake of cavil. It is now well settled that unless or until the complainants get the possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. This view finds support from this authority reported in "Raghava Estates Ltd. v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association" Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012."Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 9
11. In another case Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. M/s Unitech Ltd. 2015 (3) CPJ 440 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission held in Para-17 as follows:
"17. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the last date stipulated in the buyers agreement for giving possession of the flat to them expired more than two years ago, the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is now settled legal proposition that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to him the buyers can always approach a Consumer Forum. It is only when the seller flatly refuses to give possession that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act would begin to run. In that case, the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the seller refuses to deliver possession of the flats to the complainants at any point of time and, therefore, the cause of action continues to subsist in favour of the complainants. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non- delivery of possession of the plot."
Similarly, in the present case, there is no denial on the part of the opposite parties to deliver the possession. Since neither possession has been delivered nor the amount deposited by the complainant has been refunded till date, so in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, it is a continuous cause of action and the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation.
12. Now, coming to merits of the case, initially the father of the complainant Sh. Piara Singh purchased the plot, in question, from Sh. Hardeep Kumar Jassi, vide agreement Ex.C-2; who was the original allottee. Vide allotment letter dated 19.09.2015, Ex.C-9, Sh. Piara Singh was allotted plot No.431, measuring 200 sq.yds. for total sale Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 10 price of ₹17,00,000/-. The complainant alleged that a total sum of ₹16,81,250/- was paid against the price of the plot, as per details given in Para-8 of the complaint. This fact is also evident from receipts/demand drafts Ex.C-2 (colly.), Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13. After the death of Sh. Piara Singh, the plot, in question, was transferred in favour of the complainant, vide letter dated 27.07.2017, Ex.C-17. As per Clause 4.1 of the allotment letter dated 19.09.2015 Ex.C-9, possession of plot was to be delivered within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver actual and physical possession of the plot to the complainant within the stipulated period. The plea of the opposite parties is that the developments works at site have already been completed on 30.09.2015, as per certificate Ex.R-3 and all the basic amenities have been provided at the site, but the complainant or his father never approached them for taking the possession. To refute this stand of the opposite parties, the complainant has produced photographs Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-21, the perusal of which shows that the project of the opposite parties is incomplete and no roads or basic amenities exist at the site.
13. It also needs to be mentioned that Completion/Occupation Certificate is required to be obtained by every promoter, before delivery of possession of the plot/flat/unit etc. to the allottee. The opposite parties fall under the definition of "Promoter", as defined in the Explanation-1 given under Section 2 (y) of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA"), which is reproduced below:
Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 11
"(y) "promoter' means the person,-
(a) who constructs or causes to be constructed a building consisting of apartments, or, converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other person, and includes his assigns; or
(b) who develops land into a colony, whether or not be also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons, all or some of the plots, whether open or with structures thereon; and
(c) where the person who constructs or convert a building or develops a colony and the person who sells apartments or plot are different persons, the term includes both of them;
Explanation-(1): Any development authority and any other public body so notified by the State Government are deemed to be promoter in respect of allottees of,-
(i) buildings constructed by them on land owned by them or placed at their disposal by the State Government; or
(ii) plots owned by them or placed at their disposal by the State Government;
Explanation,- (2) A person who acts as described in sub- clause (c) of clause (y) shall be deemed to be a promoter, even if,-
(i) he styles himself as a builder, colonizer, contractor, developer, estate promoter or by any other name; or
(ii) he claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building is constructed or colony is developed;"
14. Similar question has also been resolved by this Commission in Execution Application No.79 of 2016 in Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2015 (Group Captain Bhupinder Singh v. Chief Administrator, GMADA & Anr.), decided by this Commission on 29.05.2018, holding that opposite parties-GMADA squarely fall within the definition of "Promoter", as defined in Section 2 (y) of PAPRA and discussed above. It was also held in that case that the opposite parties, being promoter, were duty bound to obtain Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authority before delivering possession of the particular property to the allottee. Similar proposition of law was laid down by this Commission in Consumer Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 12 Complaint No.420 of 2018 (Usha Rani v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr.) decided, vide order dated 11.09.2018.
15. Furthermore, Section 14 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA") deals with responsibility of the promoter to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificate from the competent Authority, which reads as under:
14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5.
(2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."
16. Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing), which is applicable to the properties falling within the Municipal Limits, provides as under:
"No person shall occupy or allow other person to occupy any new building or part of a new building for any purpose whatsoever until such building or part thereof has been certified by the local authority or of any person authorized by it in this behalf to be in every respect completed according to the sanctioned plan and fit for the use for which it is erected."Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 13
17. Further, Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, reads as under:-
"272. Completion Certificate. -
(1) Every person who employs a licensed architect or engineer or a person approved by the Commissioner to design or erect a building or execute any work shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of the building or execution of the work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner a notice in writing of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed by byelaws, made in this behalf and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such building or work.
(2) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any building or a part thereof effected by any such work until permission has been granted by the Commissioner in this behalf in accordance with bye-laws made under this Act: Provided that if the Commissioner fails within a period of thirty days after the receipt of the notice of completion to communicate his refusal in grant such permission, shall be deemed to have been granted."
18. No evidence has been led by the opposite parties on record to prove that the plot, in question, or a part thereof has been got certified by them from the local/competent authority, so as to deliver its complete possession to the complainant for his occupation. Thus, they committed violation of Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing) as well as Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, reproduced above. Without issuance of such a certificate by the competent authority, the opposite parties cannot be said to be in a legal position to hand over possession of a particular property/plot. In such circumstances, it is held that the opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 14 failed to deliver possession of the plot, complete in all respects, to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.
19. It would also be appropriate to refer the "Objects and Functions" given under Section 28 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995; which are reproduced as under:
28. Objects and Functions of the Authority:-
(1) The objects of the Authority shall be to promote and secure better planning and development of any area of the State and for that purpose the Authority shall have the powers to acquire by way of purchase, transfer, ex-change or gift or to hold, manage, plan, develop and mortgage or otherwise dispose of land or other property or to carry out itself or in collaboration with any other agency or through any other agency on its behalf, building, engineering, mining and other operations to execute work in connection with supply of water, disposal of sewerage, control of pollution and other services and amenities and generally to do anything with the prior approval or on direction of the State Government, for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Authority itself or in collaboration with any other agency or through any other agency on its behalf,-
(i) if so required by the State Government or the Board, take up the works in connection with the preparation and implementation of Regional Plans, Master Plans and New Township Plans and town improvement schemes;
(ii) undertake the work relating to the amenities and services to be provided in the urban areas, urban estates, promotion of urban development as well as construction of houses;
(iii) promote research, development of new techniques of planning, land development and house construction and manufacture of building material;
(iv) promote companies, association and other bodies for carrying out the purposes of the Act ; and
(v) perform any other function which are supplemental, incidental or consequential to any of the functions referred to in this sub-section or which may be prescribed."
Perusal of the above said "Objects and Functions" shows that in pursuance of the same, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 15 Authority (PUDA) has been floating Schemes for setting up developed colonies for general public in various cities in Punjab. Before undertaking such a Scheme, it has to prepare a proper Scheme, in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 and presumption is that the Scheme must have been framed, keeping in view the provisions of the said Act. All the financial implications and other things must have been taken care of by PUDA. After considering the pros and cons, the Scheme is supposed to have been launched by the development authority, being a public authority. Taking the same into consideration, the applicant applies for allotment of a plot in such a Scheme, specifically when such a Scheme is launched by the Government Authority for the welfare of the general public. The above said Scheme was launched by the opposite parties for the welfare of the general public, so that needy person can have his/her own house, if he/she or his/her spouse or other dependents were not having any house. Keeping in view all these terms and conditions, complainant had purchased the plot from the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plot, in question, within the stipulated period, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.
20. Hence, opposite parties are liable to deliver possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects along with agreed facilities and Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in his favour. For delay in delivery of possession, they are also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the total deposited amount by the complainant Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 16 from 18.12.2015 (i.e. after 90 days from the issuance of allotment letter dated 19.09.2015 Ex.C-9) till actual delivery of possession of the plot, as observed above. However, if the opposite parties will not be able to deliver possession of the plot and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed within the aforesaid period, then in the alternative they shall refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. ₹16,81,250/- (as prayed for by the complainant in the complaint), along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period it remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. They are also liable to pay suitable compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including litigation expenses.
21. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to deliver possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities/amenities and Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authority, and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in his favour;
ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the total deposited amount by the complainant from 18.12.2015 till actual delivery of possession of the plot, as ordered above;
iii) to pay compensation of ₹22,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including litigation expenses.Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2019 17
22. In case the opposite parties fail to comply the directions, as ordered above, then in the alternative, they shall:
i) refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. ₹16,81,250/- (as prayed for by the complainant in the complaint), along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period it remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and
ii) to pay ₹22,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including cost of litigation.
23. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 45 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.
24. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to lockdown enforced in the entire country, in view of advisory issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, to avoid mass gathering due to threat of COVID- 2019.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT June 11, 2020.
(Gurmeet S)