State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tanuj Kansal vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust on 1 February, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017
Date of institution : 20.09.2017
Date of decision : 01.02.2018
Tanuj Kansal s/o Shri Krishan Kansal R/o House No.359-360,
Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra-136 118.
.......Complainant
Versus
1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Executive
Officer.
2. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar.
......Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Shri G.C. Garg, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant, Tanuj Kansal, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹29,09,310/-, along with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum with quarterly compounded from the date of deposits till realization; Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 2
ii) to pay ₹25,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and for the depreciation in the amount deposited by the complainant on account of inflation and the rise in the prices of the immovable properties during the last 2-3 years; and
iii) to pay ₹50,000/- towards costs and litigation expenses.
Facts of the complaint:
2. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the opposite parties had framed a development scheme over an area of 94.97 Acres for allotment of residential plots in Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, for which booking was commenced from 8.8.2011 and circulated advertisement through various channels for allotment of freehold residential plots. On coming to know about the same, the complainant purchased application form and submitted the same to the opposite parties through Punjab National Bank along with application money to the tune of ₹6,05,000/- for allotment of a residential plot measuring 356 square yards in General Category. Thereafter the complainant was allotted residential plot of the same size bearing No.1-D at the rate of ₹17,000/- per square yard for a total cost of ₹54,63,080/-, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 containing terms and conditions of the allotment, according to which, the opposite parties were to develop the plot area within two and a half years from the date of allotment. Thereafter the complainant deposited an amount of ₹11,34,750/-, vide demand draft No.077969 dated 26.11.2012 and Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 3 another amount of ₹10,89,360/-, vide demand draft No.080624 dated 20.12.2013. The complainant also sent two demand drafts bearing No.81466 and 81467 dated 1.7.2015 for ₹40,000/-, each, in favour of the opposite parties. As such, the complainant had paid the total amount of ₹29,09,310/- towards the cost of the plot in question with the opposite parties. It is further averred that sensing something fishy, the complainant personally visited the site and noticed that there was no sign of any development at the site. There was no demarcation of the plots and there were only open fields at the site and the land owners were sowing crops. Despite repeated requests by the complainant, he was unable to get the possession of the residential plot under reference from the opposite parties till the date of filing of the complaint in-spite of payment of an amount of ₹29,09,310/-. The complainant did not make payment of further instalments as the opposite parties failed to respond to his request for delivering possession of the residential plot to him nor did they provide requisite and promised infrastructure and basic facilities and also keeping in view the fact that there was on-going litigation with regard to a huge portion of the land acquired by the opposite parties under the Development Scheme. In these circumstances the complainant visited the opposite parties repeatedly and called upon them to either deliver the possession of the residential plot allotted to him or to refund the amount deposited by him along with interest.
However, the opposite parties orally expressed their inability to deliver the vacant possession of the residential plot. Thereafter the Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 4 complainant sent legal notice dated 1.5.2017 through his counsel. However, he did not receive any response to the said legal notice till the date of filing of the complaint. It is further averred that 6 petitioners; namely, Arjan Singh s/o Mangal Singh, Jagdish Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh, Devinder Kumar s/o Khushpal Chand, Kewal Singh s/o Ganga Singh, Amrik Singh s/o Dalip Singh and Bhajan Singh s/o Meja Singh, all residents of Jalandhar and the original owners of the land acquired, had filed Civil Writ Petition No.3559/2011 on 23.2.2011 against the State of Punjab as well as Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Collector, Land Acquisition, Jalandhar for quashing notification u/s 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, in which the Hon'ble High Court ordered maintenance of "status quo regarding possession". It is further averred that while the Hon'ble High Court had stayed dispossession of a big portion of the land acquired by the opposite parties on or around 8.3.2011, yet they went ahead with opening of booking on 8.8.2011 during the operation of the aforesaid interim order. No indication was given to general public by the opposite parties in the brochure regarding the pending litigation with the original owners of the land acquired by them for the development scheme misleading the prospective purchasers of residential plots including the complainant to invest their hard earned money in that Scheme. It is further averred that in similar circumstances this Commission ordered refund of the amount deposited vide judgment dated 7.3.2017 passed in CC No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 5 Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and another). Hence alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the present complaint was filed for issuance of aforementioned directions to the opposite parties. Defence of the opposite parties:
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply in which they admitted that the complainant had applied for 356 square yard plot and he was allotted one of such plot, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011 and that 10% of the earnest money was deposited by him. They also admitted that the complainant has already paid ₹29,09,310/-, against the total price of the plot and that the possession thereof was not delivered to him.
While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the complainant has not paid all the instalments on time and he is a defaulter in making the payments of 3rd, 4th and 5th instalments as per Schedule. As per the terms of allotment, the allotment of the plot was liable to be cancelled due to non-payment of the agreed instalments. Obviously the complainant cannot take benefit of his own fault and claim refund of the amount, which was rightly forfeited by the opposite parties. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. The complainant is permanent resident of Kurukshetra and there is not a single document that he applied for the allotment of the plot for building a dwelling unit at Jalandhar. From the very beginning the whole purpose of applying for the plot is to make quick gains in a Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 6 rising real estate market. Obviously the intention of applying for the allotment of the plot is "commercial purpose" and as such, the complainant is not a 'consumer'. It is further averred that as per own contention of the complainant the handing over of the physical possession of plot No.1-D to him got delayed for reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties as in respect of certain khasras of the land under acquisition, the land owners had got stay order from the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is submitted that the stay of possession was granted in respect of some land under the award even before the launch of the Scheme. The complainant was well aware of the ground realities but still chose to apply for the allotment of the plot very well knowing that stay of possession exists in favour of the landowners in respect of some land under acquisition. The complainant is bound by the doctrine of "Caveat emptor" in respect of title of property in land deeds. The opposite parties are ready and willing to consider the request of the complainant for handing over the possession of the plot in question or alternatively allotting any other suitable plot to him. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
Evidence of the Parties:
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C-12 and copy of judgment dated 7.3.2017 passed by this Commission in CC No.88 of 2015 along with other bunch of cases as Mark-A. On the other Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 7 hand, the opposite parties proved on record affidavit of their Executive Officer Rajesh Chaudhary as Ex.OP-A.
5. We have carefully gone through the averments of both the sides, the evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have also heard learned counsel on their behalf.
Contentions of the Parties:
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice by preparing the Scheme and inviting applications for the allotment of plots in that Scheme knowing fully well that they were not in a position to demarcate and allot the plots on account of the dispute already going on between them and the land owners regarding the possession of the land forming part of that Scheme and regarding which the stay/status-quo had already been granted by the Hon'ble High Court. As per the allotment letter, the agreement of sale was to be executed between the parties and the possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant within 30 days of the execution of that agreement. The agreement was executed between the parties but the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties were in a position to deliver the same. After the allotment of the plot, the complainant became the 'consumer' of the opposite parties and the non-delivery of the possession of the plot amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On account of that deficiency in service the complainant suffered loss and injury; as a result of the inflation of the money and Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 8 the rise in the prices of the construction material. In all these circumstances the complainant is not only entitled to the refund of the price of the plot paid by him, along with penal interest as claimed in the complaint, but is also entitled to compensation and the litigation costs, as prayed therein.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant failed to comply with the conditions, as mentioned in the allotment letter, Ex.C-3 and on account thereof, the possession of the plot was not delivered to her. He never got Agreement executed within the period of 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and never came forward to take possession of the plot in dispute. The plot in question could not be given to the complainant in view of the stay granted by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.3559 of 2011 and other CWPs, which have now been dismissed, vide order dated 22.12.2015 and SLP has already been dismissed. Plot No.1-D can be considered for handing over its possession to the complainant or alternatively allotment of any other suitable plot can also be considered. The opposite parties have already carried out development work in the entire scheme area by providing all the basic amenities and have spent a lot of finances for the development works. On the dismissal of the writ petitions the possession of the remaining land has also been obtained by the Trust and the development works in the entire area have been started by the Trust which is in full swing. In all these circumstances, the complainant Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 9 cannot ask for the refund of his money nor he is entitled to any such compensation.
Consideration of Contentions:
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
9. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that identical matters have already been decided by this Commission in the following cases:
i) Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
ii) Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2014 (Mrs. Pooja Garg v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
iii) Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2014 (Ravinder Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
iv) Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2015 (Sukhdev Singh Sehgal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 7.3.2017;
v) Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2015 (Col. RS Gotra (Retd.) v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
vi) Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2015 (Harbhajan Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 10
vii) Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2015 (Darshan Lal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
viii) Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2015 (Mintu Sood v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
ix) Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2015 (Rajesh Verma v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
x) Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2015 (Sanjiv Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xi) Consumer Complaint No.177 of 2015 (Bhim Singh vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 7.3.2017;
xii) Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2015 (Bharat Bhushan Bhutani vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xiii) Consumer Complaint No.186 of 2015 (Rajinder Kumar Godara v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xiv) Consumer Complaint No.187 of 2015 (Surender Lal Yadav vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 11
xv) Consumer Complaint No.190 of 2015 (Jatinder Pal Singh v.
v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xvi) Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2015 (Harbans Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xvii) Consumer Complaint No.206 of 2015 (Tarsem Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xviii) Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015 (Raj Kumar Setia v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xix) Consumer Complaint No.222 of 2015 (Harmanjit Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xx) Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2015 (Navneet Goyal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxi) Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2015 (Alka Jindal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxii) Consumer Complaint No.242 of 2015 (Harpal Singh Arora v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 12xxiii) Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2015 (Parampal Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxiv) Consumer Complaint No.255 of 2015 (Jatinder Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxv) Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2015 (Kusam Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017;
xxvi) Consumer Complaint No.334 of 2015 (Anil Kumar Chowdhary v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another) decided on 7.3.2017.
xxvii) Consumer Complaint No.533 of 2017 (Satish Kumar v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; xxviii) Consumer Complaint No.614 of 2017 (Amit Singh Sindhu v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; xxix) Consumer Complaint No.615 of 2017 (Gayatri Devi v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; xxx) Consumer Complaint No.616 of 2017 (Sanjay Singhal v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017; and xxxi) Consumer Complaint No.617 of 2017 (Joginder Singh v.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust) decided on 5.12.2017.
10. The matter in the present complaint is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said cases, so we intend to decide the present complaint in view of orders passed in above said cases. Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 13
11. Admittedly, the plot, in dispute, was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 23.12.2011, Ex.C-3. It is also an admitted fact that towards the total price of the plot, so mentioned in the allotment letter, ₹29,09,310/- has already been deposited by him. It is also admitted that the possession of the plot has not been delivered to the complainant nor the opposite parties were in a position to deliver the same. As per condition No.5 of allotment letter, the complainant was to attend the office of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust within 30 days and was to take with him two witnesses and stamp paper of ₹500/- for getting the Agreement executed. It is not the case of the complainant that he complied with that condition. However, from the evidence produced on the record by him, it stands proved that the complainant has paid the substantial amount towards the price of the plot in question. If the complainant had not himself appeared in the office to get the Agreement executed, the opposite parties could have invoked condition No.6, vide which they were authorized to cancel the allotment and to forfeit the amount already deposited by the complainant. It never invoked that clause and continued to receive the instalments from the complainant. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite parties to say that the complainant never became entitled to the possession of the plot on account of the non-execution of the Agreement.
12. It is very much clear from the terms and conditions of the allotment letter that all the development facilities were to be provided Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 14 within two and a half years from the date of allotment letter by the opposite parties. The complainant has sworn in his affidavit that no development has taken place at the spot and rather there is status- quo order regarding the land, which was issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition filed by the land owners. That fact has also been admitted by the opposite parties in their reply. There was status-quo with regard to the land of the scheme area and as a consequence thereof overall development of the project area, including various amenities, could not be carried out in the time bound manner as stipulated in the allotment letter. In similar case i.e. in C.C. No.129 of 2015 decided by this Commission (Hardev Singh v. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and Ors.), the complainant produced on record the letter dated 21.10.2005 (Memo No.6/44/05-4LG2/16729-90) written by the Local Government Department, Punjab to all the Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab, as per which before commencement of the process of allotment of the plot in the Scheme, the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Improvement Trusts were to certify on record that physical possession of the site(s) of proposed allotment/auction free from all encumbrances/obstructions was readily available for onward transmission to the prospective allottees and that there was no physical obstruction to start the construction activities. In fact, this was the position taken up by the State of Punjab in the letter dated 23.2.1983 (Memo No.66-I-3GII-83/7070-7090) which was reiterated. In that letter it was mentioned that as far as possible the Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 15 Improvement Trusts shall allot/auction the sites only when they were sure that they were in a position to deliver the possession of the site to the purchaser. It is a fact that the possession of the whole of the land which forms part of the Scheme was not with the opposite parties when they commenced the process of allotment of plots to the complainant and the other applicants. The original land owners were in possession thereof, who had obtained the status-quo order from the Hon'ble High Court. In these circumstances the opposite parties should not have proceeded with the Scheme and by indulging in the activity of allotting the plots in the Scheme, when possession of whole of the land was not with them, amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.
13. It was the possession of the developed plot, which was to be given to the complainant. The next question to be determined is, whether the opposite parties have made the required development at the site? It has been specifically deposed by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-A that no such development has been done by the opposite party. To rebut that deposition of the complainant, the opposite parties proved on record the affidavit of Rajesh Chaudhary, Executive Officer, Ex.OP/A in which he deposed that despite the best efforts of the opposite parties, the plot in question could not be given to the complainant in view of the stay granted by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Now, CWP No.3559 of 2011 and other CWPs have been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, vide orders dated 22.12.2015 and Plot No.1-D can be considered for Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 16 handing over its possession to the complainant or alternatively allotment of any other suitable plot can also be considered. In the entire affidavit the Executive Officer of the opposite parties has nowhere stated about the status of the development at the site nor any document has been placed on record in respect thereof. Therefore, it cannot be concluded in the absence of any evidence that the development was completed by the opposite parties, as required by the letter of allotment. The omission on the part of the opposite parties in developing the Scheme as per their undertaking given in the allotment letter also amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for allotment of the plot. The complainant has rightly stopped making further payments when he realized that no development works were being carried out at the site. Therefore, he is not a defaulter in making the payment of the instalments to the opposite parties. From the above discussion, it is very much clear that no development has been made at the spot and the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver possession of fully developed plot to the complainant and that they adopted unfair trade practice.
14. Similar question had arisen before this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.81 of 2013 (Munish Dev Sharma v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and another) and Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2013 (Sanjay Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another) both decided on 30.07.2014. Those complaints were filed in respect of the plots in the same Scheme and Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 17 the facts were similar. The complaints were allowed and against those orders, the opposite parties preferred the appeals F.A. No.1215 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Munish Dev Sharma) and F.A. No.1216 of 2014 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Another v. Sanjay Gupta) respectively before the Hon'ble National Commission, which were decided on 01.07.2015. The Hon'ble National Commission held as under:-
"26. Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above order that as on 8.3.2011, there was "Status quo regarding possession". However, the appellants despite having full knowledge of the above order of the High Court, issued allotment letters on 26.12.2011 and 23.12.2011, in respect of plots in question. Therefore, above facts clearly goes on to show, that at the time of issuance of the allotment letters in respect of plots in question, it was well within the knowledge of the Appellant-Trust, that there was an impediment in allotment of the plots in question. In spite thereof, Appellant-Trust had gone ahead and allotted plots in question to the respondents, which it could not have done so. In this manner, appellants have played fraud with the general public and thus collected huge amount of money.
27. The aforesaid act of the appellants, clearly falls within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice" as defined under Section 2(1)(r) of the Act, relevant portion of which states; "(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 18 adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
28. Appellants having full knowledge that the scheme in question could not see the light of the day, still promoted the scheme to befool the public. Thus, appellants have adopted "unfair method" as well as "deceptive practice" in promoting the sale of the plots in question. This act of appellants, is squarely covered within the meaning of "Unfair Trade Practice".
29. Furthermore, appellants after having taken substantial amount from the respondents in the year 2011, are still enjoying their hard earned money for last many years. Now, when appellants are not in a position to allot the plots in a habitable condition to the respondents, then why they are still withholding respondents' money. There is no reasonable and plausible explanation, in this regard from the side of the appellants. We deplore such "unfair trade practices" being adopted by the Appellant-Trust, which is a Public Body.
30. It would also be pertinent to observe, that appellants have not given any firm date of handing over the possession of plots in question, to the respondents which also is a "Deceptive Practice". The appellants should have given firm date of handing over of possession, at the time of taking booking amount. By not indicating the true picture with regard to their scheme to the respondents, appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to "unfair trade practice".
31. Thus, appellants by not delivering the physical possession of fully developed plots to the respondents, till Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 19 date even after having received more than 90% of the price thereof, are not only deficient in rendering service but are also guilty of indulging into "unfair trade practice".
32. Appellants in the present case, "wants to have the cake and eat it too", as admittedly they have received about 90% of the sale price of the plots. The appellants are thus enjoying possession of the plots as well as substantial amount of consideration paid by the respondents. On the other hand, respondents after having paid substantial amount of the sale consideration, are still empty handed.
34. Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of Appellant- Trust should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the purchasers, enjoy and utilize their money but do not hand over the plots on one pretext or the other. Appellants want the respondents to run from one fora to other, so that appellants can go on enjoying the respondents' money without any hindrance.
35. It is well settled, that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless appeal in consumer foras. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree, must be dealt with heavy hands. Unscrupulous developer like Appellant-Trust, who after taking almost entire cost of the plots, do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of Public Bodies, that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters."
When such is the position, we conclude that the complainant on account of the adoption of unfair trade practice by the opposite Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017 20 parties is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him towards the price of the plot, along with interest and for the harassment having been suffered by him at the hands of the opposite parties is also entitled to compensation.
15. Accordingly this complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹29,09,310/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹1,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall
be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.
16. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 1, 2018 Bansal