State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajendra Kumar Rajgarhia & Anr. vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 10 September, 2021
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 03.08.2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.09.2021
COMPLAINT NO. 824/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
RAJENDRA KUMAR RAJGARHIA & ANR. ....COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. ....OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
Present: Ms. Ravisha Gupta, Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, Counsel for the Opposite Party.
PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of Covid-19]
1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Rajgarhia & Mr. Ajay Rajgarhia (hereinafter referred to as "Complainants") against Parsvnath CC 824/2016 Page 1 of 19 Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Opposite Party") seeking the following reliefs:-
A. "Direct the Opposite Party to handover possession of Apartment, to the Complainants, complete in all respects and in conformity with the Flat Buyer Agreement and fir the consideration mentioned therein, with all additional facilities and as per quality standards promised, and execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of the said apartment in favour of the Complainants;
B. Direct the opposite Party to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants with the Opposite Party, with effect from 36 months from the date of the Flat Buyer Agreement , till the date if actual physical possession as per clause (a) above is handed over by the Opposite Party, along with all necessary documents and common areas and facilities.
C. Quash the demand of Service Tax raised by the opposite Party to the amount of Rs. 13, 205 in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anuj Goyal and Others Vs Union of India and Others W.P. (C) 2235/2011 D. Direct to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) to the Complainants, as a whole, towards litigation costs including mental agony.
E. Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate."
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 01.05.2006, the Complainants applied for a flat through a Group Housing Scheme floated by the Opposite Party and paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide cheque no. 978120 drawn on Punjab National Bank. In lieu of the aforesaid, on 23.02.2007, the CC 824/2016 Page 2 of 19 Complainants were provisionally allotted a residential flat bearing no. T20- 1103 in the Opposite Party's project by the name and style of "Parsvnath Privilege" located at Greater Noida, U.P. The Complainants further paid an amount of Rs. 2,82,037/- totaling to Rs. 12,82,037/- which constituted 25% of the total sale consideration.
3. Pursuant thereto, the Complainants and the Opposite Party entered into a Flat Buyer Agreement dated 21.05.2007 which dictated the terms and conditions of the booked flat. The Flat Buyer Agreement provided that the Complainants were allotted flat bearing no. T20- 1103 in Tower T20 admeasuring 1855 sq.ft. The basic sale price was agreed between the parties at Rs.51,28,147.50/- and the Complainants opted for a Construction Linked Payment Plan which is produced as follows:-
PLAN B : CONSTRUCTION LINKED PAYMENT PLAN S.NO INSTALLMENT PERCENTAGE PAYABLE
1. At the time of booking 25%
2. On Start of Foundation 10%+Lease Money
3. On start of Basement Roof Slab 7%+50%Covered Car Parking
4. On start of First Floor Roof Slab 7%+50%Covered Car Parking
5. On start of Third Floor Roof Slab 7%
6. On start of Fifth Floor Roof Slab 7%
7. On start of Seventh Floor Roof Slab 7%
8. On start of Ninth Floor Roof Slab 7%
9. On start of Eleventh Floor Roof Slab 6%
10. On start of Top Floor Roof Slab 6%
11. On start of Internal Plaster 6%
12. At the time of offer of possession 5%
4. The Flat Buyer Agreement also provided that the construction was to be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat is located.
CC 824/2016 Page 3 of 195. It is pertinent to mention here that on 27.09.2007 the complainants got a home loan sanctioned of Rs. 40,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank. Thereafter, the Complainants, the Opposite Party and the Punjab National Bank entered into a Tripartite Agreement on 26.10.2007.
6. The Opposite Party intimated the Complainants vide their letter dated 10.06.2010 that the construction of the aforesaid flat shall be completed by March, 2012. However, the Opposite Party failed to adhere to the promises made and aggrieved by the same, the Complainants visited the project and discovered that the construction had not commenced in the tower in which the Complainants were allotted a flat.
7. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainants approached this commission.
8. The Opposite Party contested the present case and raised some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present complaint and contended (a) that the present complaint is not maintainable because it is beyond the Territorial jurisdiction of this Commission ; (b) that the said flat has been purchased solely for the purpose of investment, merely for "Commercial Purpose", hence, the Complainants are not Consumers within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; (c) that since the Complainants are seeking recovery of money, the present complaint is nothing but a suit for recovery, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this commission and can only be decided by a Civil Court ; (d) that the Complainants have failed to establish any kind of deficiency in providing services by the Opposite Party ; (e) that there exists a contract between the parties CC 824/2016 Page 4 of 19 and both the parties are bound by the terms of the contract with respect to compensation payable. Pressing the aforesaid preliminary objections, the Opposite Party prayed that the present Consumer Complaint should be dismissed.
9. The Complainants filed their Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. The parties filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record. After the completion of the pleadings, the Final Arguments were heard.
10. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused through the material on record.
11. The fact that the Complainants had booked a flat with the Opposite Party is not in dispute from the evidence on record. Moreover, in its written statement, the Opposite Party has not denied the receipt of an amount of Rs. 12, 82, 037/- paid by the Complainants, hence, the same stands unrebutted.
12. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate preliminary issues as to the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint.
TERRTITORIAL JURISDICTION
13. The first and foremost question for consideration is whether this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. We deem it appropriate to refer to Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 which provides as under:
"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or CC 824/2016 Page 5 of 19 has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
14. Analysis of Section 17 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that this commission shall have the territorial jurisdiction where Opposite Party at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action arose.
15. Having discussed the statutory position, the facts of the present case reflect that the registered office of the Opposite Party is at Parsvnath Metro Tower, Shahdara, New Delhi-110032. Since the registered office falls within the territory of Delhi, this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
16. To strength the aforesaid findings, we tend to rely on Rohit Srivastava v. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198, wherein it has been held as under:
"It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No. 1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State CC 824/2016 Page 6 of 19 Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint."
17. Relying on the above settled law, we are of the view that this commission has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.
WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION -
JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER COMMMISSION BARRED?
18. The Opposite Party has also contended that the jurisdiction of this Commission would be barred in view of the fact that the present complaint is in fact a suit for recovery on which court fees is payable and would lie in a Civil Court and the Complainants in order to save the payment of court fees has filed the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the complicated question of facts and law which have been raised in the present complaint can only be decided before the Civil Court.
19. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, came into being in order to protect the interests of Consumers who are effected by the acts of the service providers, who in order to attract the Consumers, tend to make lucrative offers but when it comes to actually providing the offered services, they take a step back.
20. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines a Consumer as follows:
"(2) CC 824/2016 Page 7 of 19
(d) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;"
21. Deficiency has been defined under section 2 sub-clause (g) which reads as follows:
"(2) (g)"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a CC 824/2016 Page 8 of 19 person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;"
22. Returning to the facts of the present complaint, the perusal of the record shows that the Complainants entered into an agreement to avail the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. However, the Opposite Party failed to honour the terms of the agreement, aggrieved by which, the Complainants has approached this commission. Hence, the Complainants are entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainants are aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e. the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession within a reasonable time period and it is only due to this reason, that the Complainants have approached this Commission, which this Commission is authorized to adjudicated.
23. Our view is further fortified by the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. v. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., reported at AIR 2012 SC 2369, wherein it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes 'service' within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of consumers.
24. Moreover, nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Party which would reflect that there are such complicated CC 824/2016 Page 9 of 19 questions involved which could not be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties.
25. Consequently, we are of the view that the complaint falls within the four corners of the jurisdiction of this commission and there is no bar with respect to the jurisdiction of this commission to entertain cases related to the refund of amount deposited with the Opposite Party.
COMPLAINANTS- CONSUMERS OR NOT?
26. The Opposite Party has further contended that the Complainants are not Consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the flat was purchased for investment, which constitutes commercial purpose.
27. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-1122/2018 titled as Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Apartments were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainants have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainants are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
28. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission, it flows that it is for the Opposite Party to prove that the flat purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and CC 824/2016 Page 10 of 19 a bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainants.
29. In the present case also, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainants purchased the flat for commercial purpose and on perusal of the record before us, we fail to find any material which shows that the Complainants are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or flats on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such houses. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party in answered in the negative.
DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE
30. Having discussed the maintainability of the present complaint, the next issue to be adjudicated is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainants. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 16 SCC 512, wherein it has been held as follows:
"28. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum CC 824/2016 Page 11 of 19 extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation."
31. Returning to the facts of the present case, the record reflects that the agreement was entered between the parties on 21.05.2007 which provided that the construction of the flat would be completed within 36 months from the commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat is located. The relevant clause has been produced below:-
"10(a). Construction of the Flat is likely to be completed within a period of 36 (Thirty six) months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular Block in which the Flat is located on receipt of all requisite approvals including sanction of building plans, environmental clearances, etc. subject to force majeure and restraints /restrictions from any courts/authorities, non-availability of building materials and any circumstances beyond the control of the Developer and subject to timely payments by the Buyer. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Developer in case of delay in handing over possession of the flat on account of the said reasons. The Flat shall be deemed to be completed for the purpose of this clause/agreement when the Developer submits application/completion plans to authorities for obtaining CC 824/2016 Page 12 of 19 completion certificate, which may be for the Complex as a whole or in parts. Possession of the Flat would be given only on clearance of the entire dues payable by the Buyer to the Developer in terms of this Agreement and after execution of the Tripartite Sub-Lease Deed."
32. However, after a period of 5 years from the agreement, the Complainants visited the project site in 2012 and discovered that the construction had not commenced in the particular block, this further implied that the Opposite party had another three years from the start of construction of that particular block. It is settled law that the Complainant cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of the hard earned money which they have spent in order to purchase the property in question. (Ref: Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima reported at (2018) 5 SCC 442).
33. Relying on the above settled law, we are of the view that the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainants with respect to the time for completion of construction and delivery of possession of the flat and kept the hard-earned money of the Complainants. Moreover, the Opposite Party has failed to handover the possession of the said flat to the Complainants even till the time of filing the present consumer compliant. Thus, the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants.
34. However, the question arises as to the relief to be allowed in favour of the Complainants. The prayer clause of the Complainants reflect that the Complainants have prayed for possession of the residential flat, however, the Opposite Party has nowhere submitted before this commission that the flat is ready for possession and the possession can be delivered to the Complainants. In these circumstances, it is to be seen whether this commission has the power to award refund of CC 824/2016 Page 13 of 19 the amount even in cases where it has not been specifically prayed for by the Complainants. The Hon'ble National Commission while dealing with such a peculiar situation in Parsvnath Exotica Resident Association Vs Parsvnath Developrs Ltd. & Ors. reported at IV (2016) CPJ 328 (NC), has held as under :-
"Though, in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015, the main prayer made by the complainant is to direct delivery of the possession of the flats to the allottees complete in all respects, coupled with execution of the file deed in their favour, when this matter came up for hearing on 27.4.2016, the learned Counsel for the complainant stated on instructions, that since the building plans for construction of towers No. A-D have already lapsed and the revised plans have not been sanctioned as yet, the said allottees are not interested in waiting any longer for delivery of the possession of the flats and want to take refund, along with appropriate compensation for the financial loss suffered as well as the harassment and mental agony caused to them. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted in this regard that no prayer for refund has been made in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015. In our opinion, even in the absence of any specific prayer, it is always open to this Commission to grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case."
35. Relying on the above settled law, it is clear that this commission, even in the absence of a specific prayer, can grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. On perusal of the record before us, we find that the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the said flat even after receiving the amount of Rs. 12, 82, 037/ and even till today is not in a position to handover the flat in question to the Complainants. Therefore, we are CC 824/2016 Page 14 of 19 of the view that we would be justified to refund the amount already paid by the Complainants.
COMPENSATION PAYABLE- PARTIES BOUND BY CONTRACT?
36. The final contention raised by the Opposite Party is that if the compensation is payable to the Complainants, it should be as per the terms of the Contract entered into between the parties. The Opposite Party has contended that the Complainants are entitled for compensation only as per Clause 10(C) of the Flat Buyers Agreement. For ready reference, the same has been produced as below:
"10(c). In case of delay in construction of the Flat beyond the period as stipulated subject to force majeure and other circumstances as aforesaid under clause 10
(a), the Developer shall pay to the Buyer compensation @ Rs.53.82/- (Rupees Fifty three and paise eighty two only) per sq. meter or @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only) per sq. ft. of the super area of the Flat per month for the period of delay. Likewise, if the Buyer fails to settle the final account of the Flat within 30 days from the date of issue of the final call notice, the Buyer shall be liable to pay to the Developer holding charges @ Rs.53.82/-
(Rupees Fifty three and paise eighty two only) per sq. meter or @ Rs.5/- (Rupees Five only) per sq. ft. of the super area of the Flat per month on expiry of 30 days notice."
37. The reliance of the Opposite Party on the aforesaid clause for grant of compensation, limited to the extent as provided in it, is wholly misconstrued in terms of a series of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, the most recent on CC 824/2016 Page 15 of 19 being Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna and Ors. reported at AIR 2021 SC 437 wherein it has been held as under:
"19.5. In a similar case, this Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. affirmed the view taken in Pioneer (supra), and held that the terms of the agreement authored by the Developer does not maintain a level platform between the Developer and the flat purchaser. The stringent terms imposed on the flat purchaser are not in consonance with the obligation of the Developer to meet the timelines for construction and handing over possession, and do not reflect an even bargain. The failure of the Developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat within the contractually stipulated period, would amount to a deficiency of service. Given the one-sided nature of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of the power to direct removal of deficiency in service.
19.6. Section 14 of the 1986 Act empowers the Consumer Fora to redress the deficiency of service by issuing directions to the Builder, and compensate the consumer for the loss or injury caused by the opposite party, or discontinue the unfair or restrictive trade practices.
19.7. We are of the view that the incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice Under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. Even under the 1986 Act, the powers of the consumer fora were in no manner constrained to declare a contractual term as unfair or one-sided as an incident of the power to discontinue unfair or restrictive trade practices. An "unfair contract" has been defined under the 2019 Act, and powers have been conferred on the State Consumer Fora and the National Commission to declare contractual terms which are unfair, as null and void. This is a statutory recognition of a power which was implicit under the 1986 Act.CC 824/2016 Page 16 of 19
In view of the above, we hold that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one- sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement."
38. In the present case, the perusal of the Flat buyers Agreement reflects that nominal compensation @Rs. 5 per sq. ft. is payable to the Complainant by the Opposite Party if there is delay of any sort by the latter party. However, if the Complainant delays in the payment of the principle amount as well as the ancillary charges, the Complainant is bound to pay an interest @ 24% p.a. for the period of delay as per clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement. Clause 5 (b) is produced below for ready reference:-
"5 (b). In exceptional circumstances, the Developer may, in its sole discretion, condone the delay in payment by charging interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amounts in default. In the event of the Developer waiving the right of forfeiture and accepting payment with interest, no right, whatsoever, would accrue to any other defaulting Flat Buyers."
39. Hence, the above mentioned clauses reflect that there is no parity between the quantum of compensation payable as per the Flat Buyers Agreement by the Complainants and the Opposite Party.
40. In terms of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the Complainants cannot be made bound to a nominal compensation @ Rs. 5 per sq. ft. and the case calls for the payment of just and reasonable compensation as per the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
41. Having discussed the liability of the Opposite Party, the only question left to adjudicate is as to how the Complainant is to be CC 824/2016 Page 17 of 19 compensated for the deficient acts of the Opposite Party. It is imperative to refer to the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of " Interest" which is being allowed on the refunded amount. In Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. (supra) which is the latest pronouncement (24.08.2020) on the cause, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed an interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount received by the Opposite Party, payable within one month and in case of default to pay within the stipulated period, an interest @ 9% p.a. was payable on the said amount.
CONCLUSION
42. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, we allow the following reliefs as prayed for by the Complainant:
I. We direct the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs. 12, 82, 037/- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date of each installment/payment received by the Opposite Party till 10.09.2021 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 31.10.2021;
C. In case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 31.10.2021, the entire amount is to be refunded with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date of each CC 824/2016 Page 18 of 19 installment/payment received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
II. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is also directed to pay to the Complainant:-
A. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment;
B. And the litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
43. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
44. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
45. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On:
10.09.2021 CC 824/2016 Page 19 of 19