State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mukesh Kumar Garg vs M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 25 March, 2021
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 17.02.2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.03.2021
COMPLAINT NO. 1167/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. MUKESH KUMAR GARG .......COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. ......OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
Present: Mr. CHANKI KOHLI, Counsel for THE COMPLAINANT
Mr.RAKESH BHARDWAJ, Counsel for the OPPOSITE PARTY.
PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
[Via Video Conferencing]
1. The present complaint has been filed before this commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of services by the opposite party, wherein the complainant have prayed as under:
a) Direct the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.
13,68,062.50/- along with an interest @ 24% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount to till the realization of the said amount.
CC 1167/2016 Page 1 of 19b) Direct the respondent to pay damages/losses for Rs. 10 Lacs for breaching the terms and conditions of the agreement.
c) Cost of litigation may also be awarded.
d) Any other relief if this Hon'ble forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the Complainant had booked a residential flat bearing No. 1603 in Tower No. T19 with the Opposite Party admeasuring 1855 Sq. Ft. / 172.33 Sq. Meters of super area in the Project titled "Parsvnath Privilege" located at Greater Noida, U.P. The basic sale price of the aforesaid residential unit was Rs. 54,72,250/-.
3. The Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 13,68,062.50/- towards the said booking.Thereafter, a Flat Buyer agreement was executed between the parties dated 22.06.2007.
4. The Complainant opted for a Construction linked payment plan.
wherein payment was to be made as per the following arrangement :-
Plan "B" : Construction Linked Payment Plan Percentage of Sale Consideration Payable on Payable 25% At the time of Booking 10% + Lease Money On start of foundation 7% + 50% Covered Car Parking On start of Basement Roof Slab 7% + 50% Covered Car Parking On start of First Floor Roof Slab 7% On start of Third Floor Roof Slab 7% On start of Fifth Floor Roof Slab 7% On start of Seventh Floor Roof Slab 7% On start of Ninth Floor Roof Slab 6% On start of Eleventh Floor Roof Slab CC 1167/2016 Page 2 of 19 6% On start of Top Floor Roof Slab 6% On start of Internal Plaster 5% At the time of offer of possession
5. On a visit to the construction site, the Complainant observed that there was no progress made in construction of the said flat. The Opposite Party vide its letter dated 10.06.2010 informed the Complainant regarding the delay on account of the global slowdown which had hit the real estate sector and also that the construction of the project shall be completed by March, 2012. On 10.06.2016, the Opposite party raised a demand for clearance of dues of the Complainant.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite party was to deliver possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat is located subject to force majeure/events not in control of the Opposite party.
7. The payment receipts attached with the complaint reflect that the Complainant had made payments to the extent for Rs.13,68,062.50/- by 21.03.2007.
8. Aggrieved by the laxity in handing over possession of the flat, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 14.07.2016 upon the opposite party seeking refund of the entire amount paid by the Complainant along with an interest @ 24% per annum. The opposite party did not revert to the above mentioned legal notice. The Complainant then approached this commission for redressal of their grievance.
9. Alleging deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has approached this commission.
CC 1167/2016 Page 3 of 1910. During the course of the proceedings, notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 25.10.2016, the counsel for the Opposite Party appeared on 27.03.2017 and the copy of complaint was supplied to him. Subsequent to the acceptance of the copy of the complaint, the Opposite Party filed its written statement. The Complainant filed their rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the Opposite Party and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Thereafter, the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit to prove their averments on record and their written arguments.
11. The counsel for Opposite party has contested the present complaint and have raised certain preliminary contentions as to the maintainability of the case. The counsel for Opposite party has contended that the complaint lacks cause of action ; that the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; that the complaint involves complicated questions of law, hence, the commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case ; that the parties are bound by the terms of agreement ; and the Complainant are to be compensated as per the terms of the agreement.
12. We have heard the counsel for the Complainant as well as the counsel for the Opposite Party and perused through the material on record.
13. The fact that the Complainant had booked a flat with the Opposite party is not in dispute from the evidence on record. Payment to the extent of Rs.13,68,062.50/- was made by the Complainant to the Opposite party is also evident from perusal of receipts attached with the complaint.
14. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate preliminary issues of law as to the maintainability of the consumer complaint.
CC 1167/2016 Page 4 of 19• WHETHER THERE EXISTS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO INSTITUTE THE PRESENT COMPLAINT?
15. The first question for consideration relates to existence of cause of action against the Opposite party. The counsel for the Opposite Party contends that the complaint should be dismissed as there exists no cause of action against the opposite party and the present complaint is not maintainable.
16. To deal with this issue, it is appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported at I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts."
17. In order to substantiate the same, we find support on the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey and Ors. vs. Unitech Ltd. As reported at III (2015) CPJ 440 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under :-
"17. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since the last date stipulated in the buyers agreement for giving possession of the flat to them expired more than two years ago the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is by now settled legal proposition that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to him the buyers can always approach a Consumer Forum. It is only when the seller flatly refuses to give possession that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act would began to run. In that case the CC 1167/2016 Page 5 of 19 complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the seller refuses to deliver possession to the buyer. However, in the present cases the opposite party did not refuse possession of the flats to the complainants at any point of time and, therefore, the cause of action continues to subsist in favour of the complainants. Reliance in this regard may be place upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non- delivery of possession of the plot.
18. The facts of the present case reflect a situation similar to one as enunciated above, as in the present case also, the Opposite Party has failed to handover over the possession and lingered the same till date. It is thus a clear case of recurring cause of action. The submission of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative • WHETHER COMPLAINANT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF 'CONSUMER' UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986?
19. The counsel for Opposite party has contended that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. The counsel for opposite party alleges that the Complainant is a mere investor and booked the said property for investment/commercial purpose.
20. The contention raised by the Opposite Party relates to the purchase of the said flat by the Complainant for a commercial purpose. The aspect as to what constitutes "Commercial Purpose" has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers and Ors. reported at (2020) 2 SCC 265. The relevant portion has been reproduced as under:CC 1167/2016 Page 6 of 19
"7. To summarize from the above discussion, though a straight-jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is 'for a commercial purpose':
(i) The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, 'commercial purpose' is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.
(ii) The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.
(iii) The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.
(iv) If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of 'generating livelihood by means of self-
employment' need not be looked into."
21. A mere bald statement has been made by the Opposite Party that the Complainant purchased the flat for a commercial purpose and on perusal of record before us, we fail to find any material which shows that the Complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots 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 CC 1167/2016 Page 7 of 19 present consumer complaint. Consequently the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party is answered in negative. • WHETHER THIS COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT COMPLAINT?
22. The next question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of this commission to try the present suit. The counsel for the Opposite Party contends that the complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law which need to be proved by leading detailed oral and documentary evidence and hence the opposite party has challenged the vires of this commission to adjudicate the present complaint.
23. The jurisdiction of consumer commissions to entertain cases of this nature has been settled via array of judgments. We tend to rely on the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. v. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., reported at (2012) 5 SCC 359 :-
5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case [(1994) 1 SCC 243] , SCC pp. 256-
57, para 6) "6. ... As pointed out earlier the entire purpose of widening the definition is to include in it not only day-to-day buying and selling activity undertaken by a common man but even such activities which are otherwise not commercial in nature yet they partake of a character in which some benefit is conferred on the consumer. Construction of a house or flat is for the benefit of person for whom it is constructed. He may do it himself or hire services of a builder or contractor. The latter being for consideration is service as defined in the Act. Similarly when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much CC 1167/2016 Page 8 of 19 service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act. Any defect in construction activity would be denial of comfort and service to a consumer. When possession of property is not delivered within stipulated period the delay so caused is denial of service. Such disputes or claims are not in respect of immovable property as argued but deficiency in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade. Such deficiencies or omissions are defined in sub-clause (1)(ii) of clause (r) of Section 2(1) as unfair trade practice. If a builder of a house uses substandard material in construction of a building or makes false or misleading representation about the condition of the house then it is denial of the facility or benefit of which a consumer is entitled to claim value under the Act. When the contractor or builder undertakes to erect a house or flat then it is inherent in it that he shall perform his obligation as agreed to. A flat with a leaking roof, or cracking wall or substandard floor is denial of service. Similarly when a statutory authority undertakes to develop land and frame housing scheme, it, while performing statutory duty renders service to the society in general and individual in particular." (emphasis supplied)
6. This Court in LDA case [(1994) 1 SCC 243] further held that when a person applies for allotment of building site or for a flat constructed by the development authority and enters into an agreement with the developer or a contractor, the nature of the transaction is covered by the expression "service" of any description. The housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was, therefore, held to be "service" within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the inclusion of the expression "housing construction"
CC 1167/2016 Page 9 of 19in the definition of "service" by Ordinance No. 24 of 1993.
24. The present complaint relates to the refund of amount paid by the Complainant against a booking of flat and for deficient services by the Opposite party. We are of the opinion that this commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the cases including refund of amount, as the refund is sought due to the deficient services of the opposite party and not for any other reason. Consequently, the said contention of the opposite party is also answered in the negative. • WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?
25. The next contention of the Opposite Party is that the complaint pertains to enforcement of rights and liabilities created by virtue of agreement and the court shall not interfere with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.
26. We deem it appropriate to refer to a recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. V. Abhishek Khanna and Ors. reported at 2021 SCC OnLine SC 14, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"19.5. In a similar case, this Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan & Others 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 CC 1167/2016 Page 10 of 19 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."
27. Even in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure V. Govindan Raghavan reported at (2019) 5 SCC 725, the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a similar view. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"6.6. Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines 'unfair trade practices' in the following words :
"'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, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice ...", and includes any of the practices enumerated therein. The provision is illustrative, and not exhaustive.
In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors., this Court held that :
"89. ... Our judges are bound by their oath to 'uphold the Constitution and the laws'. The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity CC 1167/2016 Page 11 of 19 in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. ... ... These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances."
(emphasis supplied) 6.7. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder."
28. It is not in dispute that the terms and conditions of the allotment letter cannot be amended on request of the Complainant. The Opposite Party/big builders have a prescribed format of Flat Buyers CC 1167/2016 Page 12 of 19 agreement/allotment letter and there exists very little bargaining power in the hands of the Complainant, to get the clauses in the agreement amended.
29. A perusal of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement dated 15.04.2008 reveals stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For instance, Clause 5(a) and 5(b)of the Flat Buyer Agreement are reproduced as follows:
"5. (a) Timely payment of the installments/amount due shall be the essence of this Agreement. If payment is not made within the period stipulated and or the Buyer commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the agreement shall be liable to be cancelled. In the eventuality of cancellation, earnest money being 15% of the basic price would be forfeited and the balance, if any, would be refundable without interest. On cancellation of the agreement, the Buyer shall also be liable to reimburse to the Developer the amount of brokerage paid, if any, by the Developer towards the booking of the Flat. In any case, all the dues whatsoever including interest, if any, shall be payable before taking possession of the Flat.
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."
30. The clause envisages that if there is a delay in payment or in event of breach of any terms and conditions of the agreement, the allotment will be canceled by the opposite party. The only remedy available to the Complainant in such a case is to pay the defaulted amount along with CC 1167/2016 Page 13 of 19 an interest @ 24% per annum which too is at the discretion of the Opposite party.
31. Clause 10 (a) and 10 (c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement which provides for the liability of the Opposite Party reads as follows:
"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 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.
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 CC 1167/2016 Page 14 of 19 the Flat per month on expiry of 30 days notice."
32. The perusal of the Flat Buyer's Agreement dated 22.06.2007 reveals stark discrimination between the remedies available to both the parties. The stipulations are per se arbitrary and unilateral favoring the Opposite party. Considering that the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement, the Complainant is liable to pay an interest @ 24% per annum to the opposite party in case of default in making payment as per the payment plan as specified in the Flat Buyer Agreement. On the other hand, the opposite party is liable to pay only Rs. 5/-per sq.ft. to the Complainant in case of default in handing over possession within the stipulated time period as per the Flat Buyer Agreement.
33. Given the law as it stands today, we are of the opinion that the agreement is unilateral and arbitrary, favoring the opposite party and against the Complainant, hence, the Complainant cannot be said to be bound by the unilateral clauses as enumerated above. In terms of the aforesaid, we hold that the contention of the Opposite Party with reference to the parties being bound by the agreement in any given situation holds no merit..
• DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE
34. Having discussed the maintainability of the present complaint, the question left to adjudicate is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainant or not. 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 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been held as follows:
"24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat CC 1167/2016 Page 15 of 19 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 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 fulfillment of a contractual obligation.
35. As per the above dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the builder defaults in handing over of the possession to the consumer within a stipulated time period, it is a clear case of deficiency of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On perusal of the clauses of the Flat Buyer Agreement entered between the parties, the Opposite Party was to handover the Possession of the Flat within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular Block in which the Flat is located as per clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement. However the record reflects that the opposite party failed CC 1167/2016 Page 16 of 19 to handover the possession of the flat even till the date of filing the present complaint.
36. 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).
37. Relying on the above settled law, we are of the view that the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainant with respect to the time for delivery of possession of the apartment and kept the hard earned money of the Complainant for about 8 years. Moreover, the Opposite Party has failed to handover the possession of the said plot to the Complainant within a reasonable time period, thus the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant.
38. Having discussed the liability of the Opposite Party, the only question left to adjudicate is as to how the Complainant are to be 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.
39. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite party to refund the entire amount i.e., Rs.13,68,062.50/- along with interest as per the following arrangement: -
CC 1167/2016 Page 17 of 19A. An interest @ 6 % calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 25.03.2021 (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 OP pays the entire amount on or before 31.05.2021;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 31.05.2021, the entire amount is to be refunded with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
40. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is also directed to pay the complainant a sum of:-
A. Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
B. Rs. 50,000/- for cost of litigation.
41. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
42. 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.
43. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
CC 1167/2016 Page 18 of 19(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On: 25.03.2021 CC 1167/2016 Page 19 of 19