State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Soniya Kanwar vs Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. on 3 October, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 105 of 2018 Date of Institution : 06.03.2018 Date of Decision : 03.10.2018 Soniya Kanwar D/o Sh.Y.S. Kanwar R/o Village Tigri, Laksar, District Haridwar. ......Complainant V e r s u s Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited, Corp. Office SCO 46-47, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Director of Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited, Office, SCO No.46-47, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Sushil Kumar, Director of Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited, Office, SCO No.46-47, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. ..... Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.J.S. Rattu, Advocate proxy for Sh.Goldy Jakhar, Advocate for the opposite parties.
JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT The complainant has filed this complaint, seeking refund of amount of Rs.10,82,500/- paid by her, till June 2015, to the opposite parties, in respect of residential flat bearing no.EV/TRP/1029, purchased by her, in their project named "Premium Trinity Homes", Landran Banur Road, Mohali, Punjab, on the ground that despite receiving substantial amount, referred to above, they (opposite parties) failed to execute buyer's agreement and also possession thereof, has not been offered till date, for want of construction, basic amenities, necessary approvals/permissions etc. It is case of the complainant that at the time of booking of the said flat and making payment in respect of the same, it was promised that possession thereof, will be delivered within a maximum period of two years, but, when she visited project site in the month of December 2014, she was shocked to see that no construction work was going on there. It was pleaded that, despite the fact that the complainant was offered relocation to another project of the opposite parties, to which she agreed, yet, in that case also, neither agreement was sent for signatures nor possession of relocated unit was offered to her. It was averred that the complainant made all possible efforts, by approaching the opposite parties, through every possible means, in the matter, but her grievance was not redressed by them. Legal notice served upon the opposite parties on 22.11.2017 seeking refund of amount paid alongwith interest etc. did not yield any result. Compelled under circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking refund of amount paid with interest, compensation etc. Upon notice, joint written reply was filed by the opposite parties. It was stated that the complainant is a speculator; she has purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits, after selling the same in open market. She is owner of a house, address whereof has been mentioned in headnote of this complaint. It was averred that opposite parties no.2 and 3 have been wrongly impleaded as parties to the complaint, in their personal capacity. It was further pleaded that the Registered Office of the opposite parties has not been made a party to the complaint. The complaint has been filed with malafide intentions just on surmises and conjectures, which needs to be dismissed.
On merits, payment of amount towards price of the said unit, as alleged by the complainant is not controverted. Allotment of the unit, vide letter dated 26.02.2014 is also not disputed. However, despite the fact that it is evident from the record that the complainant was relocated in the project named 'Prabh Homez', in respect of relocated unit no.EV/PBH/1065, vide provisional allotment letter dated 05.01.2015, yet, the same was denied by the opposite parties. It was averred that possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered within a period of 36 months, from the date of booking/allotment, as such, legal notice sent by the complainant in November 2017 was premature. The complaint is bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties. It was pleaded that the unit was ready for possession, but the complainant failed to make the remaining payment. Since, she has made only 50% of the total sale consideration, as such, she is a defaulter and cannot claim any relief, by way of filing this complaint. She did not adhere to the payment plan, sent to her, alongwith the provisional allotment letter dated 26.02.2014. Even then, if refund is ordered, forfeiture clause, as contained in terms and conditions of the allotment, be made applicable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
We have heard the contesting 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 is a speculator, and that she has purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, she would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, as alleged by the opposite parties. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainant is a property dealer and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In para no.21 of the complaint, supported by her affidavit, it has been specifically stated by the complainant that the unit, in question was purchased by her, for her residential purpose. Mere fact that the complainant is already living in a house, address whereof has been mentioned in this complaint, did not debar her from the status of a consumer. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under: -
"In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015."
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite parties in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had booked the unit, in question, on making payment of Rs.1 lac, on 15.03.2013. It is also an admitted that she was provisionally allotted unit bearing no.EV/TRP/1029, on 26.02.2014, in the project of the opposite parties, named "Premium Trinity Homes", Landran Banur Road, Mohali, Punjab. As per Clause N of the said allotment letter, the opposite parties, committed to hand over possession of the unit, in question, latest by three years, from the date of allotment thereof i.e. latest by 25.02.2017. However, there is nothing on record that by the said date, the opposite parties completed the construction of unit originally allotted or relocated unit, referred to above, and also developed the relocated project and were ready for delivery of possession thereof to the complainant. No doubt, a plea has been taken by the opposite parties, in their joint written statement, to the effect that the tower, in which the unit is located, is ready. It may be stated here that not even a single convincing document has been placed on record, by the opposite parties to prove that the unit originally allotted or relocated unit, is ready to be handed over to the complainant and that the development at the project is complete in all respects.
It is not in dispute, that the complainant was offered construction linked payment plan and she has paid an amount of Rs.10,82,500/-, when this complaint was filed. It was her specific case that possession of the unit originally allotted or of relocated unit, was not delivered to her, for want of construction and basic amenities. On the other hand, as stated above, the opposite parties are saying that the unit is ready for possession. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, and also that the unit is ready for delivery of possession is on the builder/opposite parties. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, it is very strange that not even a single document has been placed on record, by the opposite parties, in respect of the unit originally allotted or relocated unit, to prove that construction is complete and they are actually ready for offer and delivery of possession of the same. In case, the unit is ready and all the development activities had been undertaken at the project site, then it was for the opposite parties, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development and construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but they failed to do so. At the same time, the opposite parties were also required to produce on record, a copy of the occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authorities, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove their case, but they miserably failed to do that also. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite parties failed to show any valid licence to develop the project, in question. When he was asked about the same, he was silent on this. It may be stated here that earlier also, a consumer complaint, in respect of the same project i.e. Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. was filed by one Jaswinder Singh (Jaswinder Singh Vs Emerging Valley Private Limited and others, consumer complaint no. 531 of 2017, decided on 14.05.2018) before this Commission. In that case, Jaswinder Singh had purchased a plot in the said project, yet, possession thereof was not delivered to him. In that case, he placed on record an RTI information/document dated 20.06.2017, supplied by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) i.e. the competent Authority, wherein, it was intimated that the said Company (Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.), had applied to get licence to develop a colony. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued, but, since the promoter failed to fulfill the conditions contained in the said LOI, licence was not issued to it. It was further made clear in the said RTI information that that the promoter was not competent to sell any plot/flat etc. As such, this Commission while going through the facts of that case, ordered refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest compensation, etc., vide order dated 14.05.2018. Relevant part of the order passed in Jaswinder Singh's case (supra) are reproduced here under:-
"...................It is further case of the complainant that even then, when possession was not delivered, he became suspicious and went to the site and was surprised to see that there was no development at all. To his query, as to when possession of the plot will be delivered, no satisfactory reply was given. The complainant came across RTI information supplied by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) i.e. the competent Authority. The said information was sought by a similar located allottee, qua Emerging Valley project launched by the opposite parties. The said Authority, vide letter dated 20.06.2017 Annexure C-7, intimated that opposite party no.1 had applied to get licence to develop a colony. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued. Because the promoter failed to fulfill the conditions contained in the said LOI, licence was not issued to it. It was further said vide the said letter, that the promoter was not competent to sell any plot/flat etc. Translated copy of the said letter reads thus:-
"GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA BHAWA, SECTOR 62, S.A.S. NAGAR (Town Planning and Licensing Shakha) To Sh.Manvir Singh Home No.447, Type-2, Punjab Mandi Board Complex Sector 66, S.A.S. Nagar Letter No.STP/GMADA/A-2/2016/1866 Dated 20/06/2017 Subject: Sh.Manvir Singh (File No.10919) through RTI Act, 2005 for information (Diary No.465 dated 05.06.2017) The information sought Regarding the above subject, it is stated that M/S Emerging Valley Private Limited applied for setting up a colony at Village Nogiari district SAS Nagar and for taking up the license in this office but the promoter of the colony could not fulfil the conditions of letter of intent, the licence was not issued to the promoter. The promoter of the colony cannot sell a plot, flat and boths without taking the license.
Sd/- Administrative Office Licensing GMADA, S.A.S. Nagar Endorsement No.GMADA STP/2016 dated
copy of the above is hereby sent to Administrative officer (Coordination) SAS Nagar with reference to his letter No.1222 dated 08/06/2017 for information."
Thereafter, again the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties but failed to get any positive response, qua delivery of possession of the plot.
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx................
3. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.................
4. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx................
5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx................
6. We have heard the contesting parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully and are of the considered opinion that this complaint deserves to be allowed. It is true that provisional letter in respect of initially allotted plot, measuring 200 square yards, was issued in favour of the complainant on 10.06.2015, Annexure C-2 and in the said letter, a commitment was made to hand over possession of the plot, within a period of three years i.e. upto June 2018. Before exhausting the entire period of three years, this complaint has been filed by the complainant. However, as is reflected in earlier part of this order, even as on today, licence to develop colony i.e. for the project under question, is not available with the opposite parties, as such, it will not be justified to ask the complainant to wait till the end of three years. It is apparent on record that one of the similar situated allottee sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, from the GMADA, as to whether any licence is available with opposite party no.1 to develop the project, in question or not. In the answer, vide letter dated 20.06.2017, it was specifically stated that after issuance of LOI, when the builder failed to fulfill necessary conditions, no licence was granted to it. The promoter was not competent to develop a colony and sell plots, flats etc., in the said project. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 placed on record some documents as Annexures with the affidavit and an attempt has been made to show that some permissions were available with the builder, to raise the said project, however, in the face of letter dated 20.06.2017 issued by the GMADA, such contention cannot be accepted.
At the time of arguments also, Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to show any valid licence to develop the project, in question. He only placed reliance on the documents attached with the said affidavit. Those documents came up for consideration, in a similar case, titled as Jarnail Singh Vs. Emerging Valley Private Limited, complaint case no.37 of 2017, decided on 23.05.2017 and this Commission observed as under:-
"Thereafter, during pendency of this complaint, the opposite party moved an application, to place on record some more documents Annexure R-4 to R-11, which was allowed on 06.04.2017, subject to payment of costs. Those documents are taken on record. Perusal of those documents indicate that when the project, in dispute, was launched, not even a single approval granted by the Competent Authorities, was available with the opposite party. Subject to many conditions, CLU was granted on 04.07.2013 and thereafter, in continuation to the said letter, another letter was issued on 23.09.2013 Annexure R-5. As per conditions imposed, before starting the development in the project, it was necessary for the opposite party to get licence, as per terms and conditions of The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA). NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) was to be obtained before start of development. Other permissions like environmental in terms of Notification dated 14.09.2006; NOC from the Forest Department etc., were also to be got issued. Document Annexure R-6 indicates that to make arrangements for treatment and disposal of sewerage, communication was sent by the GMADA, only on 20.11.2015. As per information supplied through document Annexure R-7, it was indicated that some land falling in the project was mutated, in the name of the opposite party, in the year 2015. Perusal of photographs placed on record Annexure R-11, also makes it very clear that within the project only, wherein an alternative unit was offered, the development/construction appears to be incomplete. The facts brought on record by the opposite party itself, make out a case in favour of the complainant. It is admitted in the written statement itself and also at the time of arguments by Counsel for the opposite party that in the project, when the unit was initially sold to the complainant in the year 2012, construction had not started at all.
Without discussing anything further, on the basis of this admission itself, it can safely be said that the opposite party was guilty of providing deficient service to the complainant and refund of the amount deposited, can be ordered accordingly.
Be that as it may, it is on record that there is nothing to show that any permission was available with the opposite party when project was sold in the year 2012. To launch the project, without getting necessary permissions/approvals, would amount to unfair trade practice. Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in a case titled as Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.765 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, it was held as under:-
"We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel. While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-
If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.
6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. "
The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the present case. In view of above, it can safely be said that by adopting unfair trade practice, the project was sold/launched. "
7. In view of above fact, the complaint filed, cannot be termed as premature. The complainant has virtually been duped. The project was sold by the opposite parties, without getting approvals/licence. Such an act would amount to unfair trade practice. It may be stated here that earlier also, against the same Company/(Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.), in Naveen Goel and another Vs. Emerging Valley Private Limited, consumer complaint bearing no.218 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 17.02.2016, it was held as a matter of fact that when the project was sold, even Change of Land Use (CLU) was not in the hands of the opposite party. Even Letter of Intent (LOI) was released thereafter. First Appeal bearing no.278 of 2016 filed against the order dated 17.02.2016, was dismissed, in limine, by the National Commission, vide order dated 18.04.2016.
In view of above, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount paid by him."
In the present case also, as stated above, there is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite parties.
Sequence of events of the present case narrated above, clearly reveal that by not delivering possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date (25.02.2017) i.e. three years from the date of allotment, as per Clause N of the allotment letter, the opposite parties have committed a material violation. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession of units/plots by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated date (in the present case not offered and it appears that it is not feasible in the near future) and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:-
"I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest."
Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-
"Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same."
Further, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-
"I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery".
In the present case also, the complainant cannot be made to wait, for an indefinite period for delivery of possession of the unit. Under above circumstances, it is held that since there was a material violation on the part of the opposite parties, in not offering and handing over possession of the unit, in question, even till date, as such, the complainant is entitled to get refund of amount paid by her.
Now coming to the plea taken by the opposite parties, to the effect that since the complainant has defaulted in making payment, as she had stopped making payment after making 50% of the sale consideration, as such, she is a defaulter and, in case, she still wanted refund, forfeiture clause will be applicable. In this regard, it is reiterated that once the opposite parties have failed to prove that they had completed the construction of unit, by the stipulated date or even by the time, this complaint was filed, as such, they cannot be heard to raise such a plea. Even otherwise, once the complainant, after making payment of about 50% of sale consideration, did not see any construction at the project site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by her, in view of principle of law laid down by the National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser. Legal notice was rightly served upon the opposite parties, on 22.11.2017, and in no way it can be said to have been sent at premature stage.
At the same time, it is not the case of the opposite parties that they were ready with delivery of possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date, complete in all respects, after obtaining occupation and completion certificates from the Competent Authorities, but the complainant failed to take over the same, for some personal/financial constraints and is seeking refund of the amount paid. Had this been the case of the opposite parties, the matter would have been different and in those circumstances, it would have been held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid, after deductions, as per law. In this view of the matter, plea taken by the opposite parties, being devoid of merit is rejected.
It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainant. It has been proved on record that an amount of Rs.10,82,500/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest @18% p.a. (as per Clause E of the Provisional Allotment Letter), for the period of delay in making payment of instalments. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014. In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest, from the respective dates of deposit, till realization.
At the same time, the opposite parties are also liable to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to her.
As far as objection regarding impleading of opposite parties no.2 and 3, in their personal capacity, in this consumer complaint, is concerned, we do not agree with the objection raised. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the above-named persons are not their Directors. As such, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company. A similar controversy arose for determination before the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017, wherein, it was held as under:-
"From the material on record, it is evident that the OP-2 is the Chairman of the Company whereas the OP-3 is the Chief Executive Officer-cum-M.D. of the said company. Evidently, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the company. By virtue of their office, they can directly influence any decision regarding relief to be granted to the complainant, as asked for in the consumer complaint. It is held, therefore, that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the interim application, rejecting the plea of the appellants to delete the name of OP-2 & OP-3 from the array of parties. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs."
In view of above, objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties stands rejected.
As far as the objection regarding non-impleading of Registered Office in this consumer complaint is concerned, it may be stated here that there are ample documents on record, which reveal that the complainant was dealing directly with Corporate Office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh, of which, opposite parties no.2 and 3 are the Directors. Once, the payments in respect of the unit, in question, were made at the said Corporate office at Chandigarh; all the correspondence took place between the parties, with the said Office, as such, objection taken in this regard, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the complaint was bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties.
No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.
For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.10,82,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs. 75,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.
The payment of awarded amounts, in the manner mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default, and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii) from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
However, it is made clear that, if the complainant has availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by her (complainant).
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
03.10.2018 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.