State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.K.Dixit vs Lda on 2 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. C/2002/11 ( Date of Filing : 16 Apr 2002 ) 1. R.K.Dixit - ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. LDA - ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 02 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Complaint Case No.11 of 2002 Sri Ram Krishan Dixit, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Shri C.B.Dixit, R/o Flat 128 (Roopayan)-First Floor, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. ...Complainant. Versus Lucknow Development Authority through its Secretary, 6, J.C. Bose Marg, Lucknow. ...Opposite party. & Complaint Case No.06 of 2011 Sri Ram Krishan Dixit ...Complainant. Versus Lucknow Development Authority through its Secretary, 6, J.C. Bose Marg, Lucknow. ...Opposite party. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President. 2- Hon'ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member. Sri R.K. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant. Sri S.N. Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite party. Date : 22.11.2023 JUDGMENT
Sri Rajendra Singh, Member- The complainant Mr. Ram Kishore Dixit has moved an application for reopening of complaint case no.11 of 2002 as per direction given in common order/judgment dated 03.07.2007 delivered in complaint Case no.11 of 2002 and four other complaint cases.
The applicant has stated that he had filed a complaint case no.11 of 2002 against Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) before this Hon'ble Commission. The Hon'ble commission disposed of complainant's case along with four other complaint cases bearing nos.06 of 2002, 01 of 2003, 177 of 2002 and 155 of 2001 with a direction to LDA to review the costs of the disputed houses and informed the allottees about the mechanism, ingredients factors and final aspects of costing. The Hon'ble commission observed that "we believe that in all these matters LDA will make the decision on fair, just and reasonable grounds." The Hon'ble Commission further directed that if the complainants are further agreeable on any unreasonable and unjust behaviour of the service provider they may after the lapse of three months, come up before the Commission and get their cases reopened.
After the judgment of Hon'ble Commission, the applicant/complainant delivered a copy of the judgment and an application for reviewing cost of his flat in the office of LDA. The office of LDA took the copy of the judgment and application of complainant from the complainant but did not give any receiving and said that they have already received the copy of judgment and directions of the Hon'ble Commission. The complainant's case in nutshell is that on his application LDA by the allotment order dated 05.10.1990 had allotted flat number P-43 (PUSHPAYAN) on the first floor of Nehru Enclave In Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme, Lucknow on the estimated sale price of Rs 2,80,000.00 on hire purchase basis. As per allotment order eight quarterly instalments of ₹ 11,500/- each was payable towards the price of allotted flat. The allotment order did not mention about the mode of payment of the balance amount. As per its description in the "Vivran Pustika" possession of flat was to be delivered on payment of 40% of the estimated sale price. Till 25.09.1995 the complainant had paid ₹ 178,783/- but opposite party did not deliver the possession of allotted flat to the complainant in spite of repeated requests alleging many grounds including that of the dispute with the Army and stay order by court.
On repeated requests LDA issued another allotment order dated 12.01.2001 allotted flat number 128 (ROOPAYAN) in Nehru Enclave and deliver the allotment order to complainant on same date. The estimated sale price of this flat is Rs 4,25,000.00 as advertised and declared in Vivran Pustika. LDA deliver possession of flat no.128 (ROOPAYAN) to complainant on 23.05.2001 and as against the estimated sale price of Rs 4,25,000.00 forced the complainant under threat to make a total deposit of ₹ 1,014,783/-. They illegally and without any justification unilaterally enhanced the price of flat number 128 (ROOPAYAN) from Rs.4,25,000.00 two ₹1,158,000/- in an arbitrary manner behind the back of the complainant. The complainant protested to LDA about this illegal, arbitrary and unjust enhancement of price of his flat from Rs.4,25,000.00 two ₹ 1,158,000/- and repeatedly prayed for reviewing the costing of flat and then they vide their letter dated 09.11.2006 intimated the complainant that after adjustment of all the charges including Freehold charges a sum of ₹ 184,919/- will be refunded to him by LDA.
As against the estimated price of Rs 4,25,000.00 of the flat LDA has already realised illegally ₹ 828,783/- from the complainant towards the price of the flat. They did not pay interest at a rate of 18% per annum on the deposit of ₹ 178,783/- made by complainant against the first allotment. Since after the delivery of judgment dated 03.07.2007 the complainant has approached the LDA several times with the request to review the costing of the flat as pronounced by the Hon'ble Commission but they did not redress the grievances of complainant and did not inform him the mechanism, ingredients, factors and final aspects of costing saying that Hon'ble Commission that has not fixed any time limit for taking decision about the reviewing of the costing. Hence due to being aggrieved by unreasonable and unjust behaviour of LDA complainant prays the Hon'ble Commission to reopen his complaint case no.11/2002 and redress the grievances of complainant for which complaint shall be highly grateful.
The Hon'ble State Commission passed the following order on 21.01.2011 :
"This application has been moved for reopening of complaint Case number 11/2002 decided along with several other complaint vide this Commission's judgment dated 03.07.2007. A perusal of the judgment indicates that liberty for reopening the complainant had been granted.
Accordingly, this application be registered as a fresh complaint and notice issued to the Lucknow Development Authority. File of complainant no.11 of 2002 shall be retained on the file of the fresh complaint and this fresh complaint will be deemed in continuation of the old one in accordance with the observations made in the last but one para of the judgment dated 03.07.2007.
List on 04.03.11 for orders."
The opposite party appeared and submitted its objection against the application filed by the complainant. The opposite party has stated that in complaint Case number 11/2002 the answering opposite party filed detailed written statement and after the perusal of evidences the Hon'ble Commission on 03.07.2007 along with other complaint cases decided the complaint cases. The complainant did not fully cooperated that's why there was delay in the disposal and on the other hand the complainant again filed an application before the Hon'ble commission in December 2010, which is false and misconceived. The sale deed of the said flat number R-128 (ROOPAYAN) has been executed on 06.06.2015 and registered before the concerned registrar. Now the complainant is in possession of the said flat hence the present complaint is liable to dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. R.K. Mishra and learned counsel for the opposite party Mr. S.N. Tewari and Mr. Yogesh Tewari. The original records have been summoned and attached with this new complaint case. We have perused the present complaint and also the earlier complaint which records has been attached with the present complaint Case.
First of all we see the complaint case no.11 of 2002 and its order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission. That complaint case has been decided with four other complaint cases on 03.07.2007. From the judgment we produce the following facts of the complaint case no.11 of 2002.
"Complaint NC- 11/2002 In complaint no.11/2002 it has been alleged by Shri Ram Krishna Dixit that he deposited registration amount of ₹20,000/- on 12.04.1989 for allotment of apartment known as Pushpayan and it's estimated sale price is Rs.2,80,000.00 given in Vivran Pustika. He also mentioned that the hire purchase condition is given in Vivran Pustika. Similar legal allegations have been raised in this complaint also as has been made in the complaint of Smt. Tanu. On 05.10.1990 allotment letter was made in favour of the complainant for flat no.43 and at the time of allotment construction of the flat was complete. Eight quarterly instalments of ₹ 11,500/- were fixed and ₹ 178,783/- was paid by him making him eligible for the possession of the house. The opposite party refused to deliver the possession due to dispute of the title with the Army. He claimed 18% interest on this amount till the delivery of possession of Rupayan 128 on 23.05.01 under its second allotment of flat no.128 on first floor, Nehru Enclave dated 12.01.2001. The final cost of the flat was ₹ 1,158,000/- as against its advertised and declared estimated sale price of Rs 4,25,000.00 as given in the Vivran Pustika. The alleged passing a fresh and new allotment on account of different flat under different price structure means the legal death of the previous allotment. His allegation that the second allotment order was passed on 12.01.2001 and it has only been mentioned in printed column as 30.10.90 . The second allotment was made when opposite party had failed to deliver the possession. The second allotment order dated 12.01.01 was served on the complainant in the office of opposite party on the same day and thereafter when the complainant deposited total amount of ₹ 650,000/- on different dates, possession of flat number 128 was delivered to the complainant on 23.05.01. The estimated price of this flat is Rs 4,25,000.00 as advertised in Vivran Pustika and opposite party is not legally justified in enhancing this estimated sale price of Rs 4,25,000.00 to Rs 11,58,000.00. He also disputed the right of LDA to deposit for the amount and said that so far he has already made total deposit amounting to ₹ 828,783/- towards the cost of flat under first allotment order dated 05.10.90 and second allotment order dated 12.01.01. He has also prayed for various reliefs such as cost of the building should be Rs 4,25,000,00 and not ₹ 1,158,000/- and also the compensation.
The LDA printout for deposit against property 128 shows the deposit of ₹ 848,783/-. In written statement, the LDA has mentioned in Tanu's case denied the allegations that there was any contract based on Vivran Pustika and they have alleged that estimation of sale price of flat was Rs 4,25,000.00 on 23.06.89, its price is escalated in 1993 and was fixed as ₹ 623,000/- and in the year 2000 final price was escalated to ₹ 1,158,000/- and this is the cost of allotted flat no.128. They alleged that the complainant was responsible for delay in possession. They have tried to justify the escalation of cost due to rise in price index of material and labour."
In the said judgment the following observation has been made :
"having considered all the facts, we are issuing the following directions to both the parties, LDA and its allottees.
The brochure or Vivran Pustika is not an offer or proposal LDA has got right to enhance the price of the property on just and reasonable grounds.
The just and reasonable grounds may be, increase in the acquisition cost of the land, change in the scheme of the project costing more, rise in price index, the other reasonable collateral matter.
We further underline and emphasise the earlier judgment of the commission mentioned above that the authorities had got no right to enhance the price arbitrarily and without reason. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have only restricted the right of consumer agency to enter into the costing matter where reasonable enhancement of the cost has been made. It is painful that even after sufficient opportunity and reminder to LDA it has not been taken care to submit before us the ground for enhancement. The initiative department of Awas Vikas, UP Government may look into the matter. It is also strange circumstances that in these bunch cases only two cases, in Tanu Case Sri SK Tewari advocate and in Nina Mineral case Shri Rajender Nath advocate appeared on behalf of LDA but in R K Dixit ,Sajal Banerjee and Col Chandra Mohan Singh case no counsel argued for LDA. It gives us pain to observe that the prosecution of the cases by opposite party is not being done properly by LDA and a number of cases the dispute goes unrepresented. LDA is a public organisation. It is property of the society at large and if any negligence in Pairvi is done by its officials the administration must put them to task.
The costing mechanism is to be transparent. In all the five cases LDA must inform those allottees about the mechanism, ingredient, factors and final aspects of the costing. If any unreasonable factor has been taken into account by LDA that should be deleted. There is no doubt that if reasonable facts are there making enhancement in the cost, the allottee will accept that. It seems that in these cases earlier allotment has been cancelled. It may be on real ground or maybe on some pretext or may be also on the ground that due to dispute with Army allottees did not come forward to deposit instalments and in the circumstances considering the just grievance of the allottees the LDA should take decision taking into consideration this factor also while making final costing or the earlier deposited money before the intervention of the Army may be returned to that allottee or may be treated to be deposited against the price of allotted property with simple interest.
The brochure or Vivran Pustika is a solemn invitation of the buyer's intention Of the Development Authorities or Awas Vikas Parishad to the general public. The facilities and commitments mentioned should be tried to be honoured. The allottee should not feel cheated after the implementation. The earlier must see that facilities and involvement mentioned under "ensuring you a good health or the best of facilities" have been endeavoured to be provided or not. Normally people alleges the service providers as guilty of 'Restrictive Trade Practice' Or 'Unfair Trade Practice'. Earlier should also examine these cases in the light of provisions made in the Act regarding these aspects."
Further the court held :
"we hope that the complainant shall also in the cases will not harm only on technical grounds considering LDA to be an organisation raise for the benefit of the people and for making a planned Urban development but were the complainants are and reasonably put to loss Redressal of the grievance may be considered by the LDA while reviewing the costs of the disputed houses.
After deciding the matter is never directions we hope the dispute will not remain any further and if the complainants are further aggrieved on any unreasonable and unjust behaviour of the service provider they may after a lapse of three months, before the commission and get the case reopened. We believe that in all these matters LDA will make decision on fair, just and reasonable grounds."
Now the question arises as to why this new complaint has been filed or why an operation has been moved for reopening the old complaint case. The complainant Mr. Ram Kishore Dixit has moved this application for reopening of complaint case no.11 of 2002. The applicant has stated that the Hon'ble Commission has disposed of complainant's case along with four other complaint cases bearing nos. 06/2002, 01/2003, 177/2002 and 155/2001 by a common interim order dated 03.07.2002 with direction to LDA to review the costs of the disputed houses and inform the allottees about the mechanism, ingredients factors and final aspects of costing. The Hon'ble commission observed that "we believe that in all these matters LDA will make decision on fair, just and reasonable grounds." The Hon'ble Commission further directed that if the complainants are further aggrieved on any unreasonable and unjust behaviours of the service provider they may after the lapse of three months, before the commission and get their cases reopened.
After the judgment of Hon'ble Commission, applicant/ complainant delivered a copy of the judgement and an application for reviewing cost of his flat in the office of LDA. The office luck of LDA to the copy of the judgement and application of complainant from the complainant but did not give any receiving and said that they have already received the copy of judgement and directions of the Hon'ble commission.
The complainant's case in a nutshell is that on his application LDA by the allotment order dated 05.10.90 had allotted flat number P - 43 (PUSHPAYAN) on the first floor of Nehru Enclave in Gomti Nagar Housing scheme, Lucknow on the estimated sale price of Rs 2,80,000/- on hire purchase basis. As per allotment order eight quarterly instalments of ₹ 11,500/- each was payable towards the price of allotted flat. Thereafter did not mention about the mode of payment of balance amount. As far as description in the Vivran Pustika, possession of flat was to be delivered on payment of 40% of the estimated sale price. Till 25.09.1995 the complainant had paid ₹ 178,783/- but LDA did not deliver the possession of allotted flat to complainant in spite of repeated requests and raising many grounds including that of the dispute with Army and stay order by court.
On repeated requests as they issued another allotment order dated 12.01.2001 allotting flat no.128 (ROOPAYAN) in Nehru Enclave and deliver the allotment order to complainant on the same day that is on 12.01.2001. The estimated sale price of this flat is Rs 4,25,000.00 as advertised and declared in Vivran Pustika. The earlier delivered possession of flat number 128 ( ROOPAYAN) to complainant on 23.05.2001 and as against the estimated sale price of Rs 4,25,000.00 the complainant under threat to make a total deposit of ₹ 1,014,783/-. The LDA legally and without any justification unilaterally enhance the price of flat number 128 (ROOPAYAN) from Rs 4,25,000.00 to ₹ 1,158,000/- in an arbitrary manner behind the back of the complainant. The complainant protested to LDA about this illegal, arbitrary and unjust enhancement of price of his flat from Rs 4,25,000.00 to ₹ 1,158,000/- and reportedly prayed for reviewing the costing of flat and then they by their letter dated 09.11.2006 intimated the complainant that after adjustment of all the charges including Freehold charges a sum of ₹ 184,919/- will be refunded to him by LDA. As against the estimated sale price Rs 4,25,000.00 of the flat, LDA has already realised illegally ₹ 828,783/- from the complainant towards the price of the flat. The LDA has not paid interest at a rate of 18% per annum on the deposit of ₹ 178,783/- made by the complainant against the first allotment.
Since after the judgment dated 03.07.2007 the complainant has approached the LDA several times with the request to review the costing of the flat as per direction of the Hon'ble Commission but they did not read the grievance is of complainant and did not inform the mechanism, ingredients, factors and final aspects of costing saying that Hon'ble commission has not fixed any time limit for taking decision about the reviewing of the costing. Being aggrieved by unreasonable and unjust behaviour of LDA, complainant prays the Hon'ble commission to reopen the complaint case no 11/2002 and redress the grievances of complainant for which complainant shall be highly grateful.
So it is clear from the perusal of the complaint case no 11/2002 that the Hon'ble State Commission directed that if grievances is not made good, the complaint case may be reopened after a lapse of three months. It means that the complainant may come before the Hon'ble state Commission after three month of the order dated 03.07.2002 but he went to the LDA for compliance of the order but after so many years when he did not get justice, he again came before this Hon'ble Commission with petition for reopening of the old complaint case and the Hon'ble State Commission has accepted his application and reopened the complaint case no 11/2002 but stated that this shall be treated as a new complaint case meaning thereby that the old complaint case has been immersed in this complaint case.
We have seen the reliefs sought in the complaint case no.11 of 2002, which has not been granted but in spite of granting the reliefs, the Hon'ble State Commission has passed a philosophical order directing the LDA to comply some directions so that the grievances of the complainant may be disposed of but the LDA did not care to comply these directions of the Hon'ble Commission.
First we see the Vivran Pustika printed and advertised by LDA. It is a printed offer to the public at large inviting the public to apply for a flat in the scheme. The public came forward and applied for a flat in the said scheme after depositing the initial cost or payment. So the offer of the LDA has been accepted by the allottees who came forward and applied for a flat and deposited the money for it so the contract has been completed. Now we see some relevant sections of the Indian Contract Act.
S/3. Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals:- The communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.
S/4. Communication when complete:- The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete,-- as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The communication of a revocation is complete,-- as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge.
Illustrations (a) A proposes, by letter, to sell a house to B at a certain price. The communication of the proposal is complete when B receives the letter. (b) B accepts A's proposal by a letter sent by post. The communication of the acceptance is complete, as against A when the letter is posted; as against B, when the letter is received by A. (c) A revokes his proposal by telegram. The revocation is complete as against A when the telegram is despatched. It is complete as against B when B receives it. B revokes his acceptance by telegram. B's revocation is complete as against B when the telegram is despatched, and as against A when it reaches him.
S/5. Revocation of proposals and acceptances:- A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. Illustration A proposes, by a letter sent by post, to sell his house to B. B accepts the proposal by a letter sent by post. A may revoke his proposal at any time before or at the moment when B posts his letter of acceptance, but not afterwards. B may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment when the letter communicating it reaches A, but not afterwards.
STATE AMENDMENT Uttar Pradesh Amendment of section 5 of Act (9 of 1872).--In section 5 of Indian contract Act, 1872, hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the principal Act, at the end of the first paragraph, the following explanation shall inserted, namely: "Explanation--Where an invitation to a proposal contains a condition that any proposal made in response to such invitation shall be kept open for a specified time and a proposal is thereupon made accepting such condition, such proposal may not be revoked within such time." [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act, 57 of 1976, s. 2] S/6. Revocation how made:- A proposal is revoked- (1) by the communication of notice of revocation by the proposer to the other party; (2) by the lapse of the time prescribed in such proposal for its acceptance, or, if no time is so prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time, without communication of the acceptance; (3) by the failure of the acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent to acceptance; or (4) by the death or insanity of the proposer, if the fact of his death or insanity comes to the knowledge of the acceptor before acceptance.
S/7. Acceptance must be absolute:- In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must-- (1) be absolute and unqualified; (2) be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance.
S/8. Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration:- Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.
S/9. Promises, express and implied:- In so far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be express. In so far as such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied.
So in this case when a proposal is floated by the LDA and the complainant accepted the proposal and submitted the consideration or part consideration for the allotment of flat which has been received by the LDA, the contract became absolute and now both the parties are parties to that contract and it was their obligation to honour the contract. This contract cannot be repudiated unilaterally but in this case we have seen that the contract has been repudiated/altered by the LDA unilaterally without the consent of the complainant which is against the mandate of the Indian Contract Act.
In LDA there are so many departments and sections and officers such as Property Officer, Chief Town Planner, Town Planner, assistant Town Planner, special Nazul Officer, Tehsildar in addition to the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and other gazetted officers of state service. In spite of all these infrastructure, the LDA failed to recognise the stature of the land likely to be occupied and before confirming that the land is free hold and free from all encumbrances how can LDA publish an advertisement for the general public inviting them to apply for the land or flat. It is total failure on the part of LDA that LDA could not recognise that the land belongs to Army. If you have publish a printed proposal for the general public inviting them to apply in your scheme or project, you cannot go behind your scheme and you cannot compel the allottees to pay more and more and further you cannot change the allotment order again and again. If you change the allotment order unilaterally to conceal your fault and mistake of your officers and of your revenue department, you are not entitled to ask the allottees to pay more because they are not meant to pay for your fault. You are liable for it and it was your duty to deduct the amount from the officers concerned or from the salary of the erring officers or employees. You, in a very simple way, asked the allottees to pay more because you have allotted them plot in a new area.
A contract has been entered between the complainant and you and now it is your duty to honour the contract and if you want to revoke it you will be liable for the loss to be suffered by the complainant. So from the circumstances of this case we are of the view that the original allotment order regarding flat number P-43, the estimated cost of Rs 2,80,000.00. Till 25.09.1995 the complainant had paid ₹ 178,783/- but LDA did not deliver the possession of the allotted flat to complainant in spite of repeated requests.
Now we see the prayer clause of the complainant in complaint case no.11 of 2002. The reliefs sought by the complainant are as follows:
That the opposite party may be directed by the Hon'ble Commission to pay interest to the complainant at a rate of 18% on deposits amounting to ₹ 178,783/- from the date of the respective deposit till the ultimate delivery of possession on 23.05.2001, on account of denial of possession of flat no.43 ( PUSHPAYAN) allotted under first allotment order dated 05.10.90.
That this Hon'ble commission may also direct the opposite party to pay compensation to the complainant for denial of possession at a rate of ₹ 50 per day of flat no. 43 under the first allotment order.
That the opposite party may be directed to pay a compensation of ₹ 1 lakh to the complainant on account of mental anguish caused to the complainant on account of the gross negligence of the OP for the complainants harassment and failure of delivery of possession under the first allotment order.
That the opposite party may be directed to charge the sale price of the flat no.128 (ROOPAYAN) allotted under the second allotment order at Rs 4,25,000.00 and not at ₹ 1,158,000/-, which is highly extortionate and is almost 3 times in excess of the price displayed and advertised through the column of VIVRAN PUSTIKA.
That the price of the flat no.128 sought to be charged at ₹1,158,000/- has been determined unilaterally in an arbitrary manner and is quite illegal and the opposite party may be directed to withdraw this deficient and illegal sale price.
That the opposite party may be directed to withdraw the illegal and the deficient demand notice dated 24.12.2001.
That the opposite party may be directed to withdraw the amount of illegal interest rates against dead and infructuous allotment order dated 05.10.1990.
That the opposite party may be directed to pay compensation to the complainant on account of the gross negligence of the opposite party in mis-stating the date of second allotment order and mentioning the cost of the flat at a highly excessive amount, which resulted in mental anguish to the complainant.
That the OP may be directed to apply afresh terms and conditions on Hire purchase denovo under the second allotment order.
That the opposite party may be directed to return the excess amount against the complainants total deposits of ₹ 828,783/- after deducting the estimated sale price of flat no.128 at Rs.4,25,000.00 with interest at 18%.
That the opposite party may be directed to bring about registration of the allotted flat in the name of the complainant within 90 days.
That any other relief appropriate under the circumstances may also be awarded to the complainant against the opposite party.
These are the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint no.11 of 2002 but the learned State Commission could not pass any order on the reliefs sought by the complainant but instead passed a philosophical order for the LDA and also put a rider that the complainant may file a application to reopen the case if LDA did not comply the order of the court within three months. It was not proper. Either you may grant relief or not.
The State Commission has said in its judgment/order that redressal of their grievance may be considered by the LDA while reviewing the costs of the disputed houses. But the LDA did not do anything for three months the time given to LDA for considering the costing and reviewing its order. So the complainant again came for this court.
First we see the object of the CP Act.
Now we see the main objectives of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
What are the main objectives of Consumer Protection Act?
The Consumer Protection Act, came into existence and implemented in 1986, provides Consumer Rights to prevent consumers from fraud or specified unfair practices. It safeguards and encourages and gives an opportunity to consumers to speak against insufficiency and flaws in goods and services. If traders, manufacturers and distributors follow any foul trade, this act protects their rights as a consumer.
On which products are these right applicable?
This Consumer Protection Act covers entire goods and services of all sectors that are public, private, or cooperative sectors, except those exempted by the central government. The act provides a floor for a consumer where one can file their complaint against the product and the forum takes an action against the concerned supplier and compensation is granted to the consumer for the inconvenience he/she has encountered.
Objectives of consumer protection act To Provide better and all round protection to consumer.
To Provide machinery for the speedy redressal of the grievances.
To Create framework for consumers to seek redressal.
To Provide rights to consumers.
To Safeguarde rights of Consumers.
Let us know more about the rights and responsiblities of consumer Consumer Rights Listed below are the Rights of the Consumer Right to Safety- Before buying, a consumer can examine on the quality and guarantee of the goods and opt for ISI or AGMARK products.
Right to Choose- Consumer must have the right to choose from a variety and number of goods and in a competitive price Right to be informed- The buyers must be provided with complete information with all the necessary and adequate details of the product, make her/him act wise, and change the buying decision.
Right to Consumer Education- The consumer must be aware of his/her rights and avoid exploitation.
Right to be heard- The consumer will get due attention to express their grievances at a suitable platform.
Right to seek compensation- The consumer has the right to seek or ask for redressal against unfair and inhumane practices or exploitation of the consumer.
Consumer Responsibilities Responsibility to be aware - A consumer has to be careful of the safety and quality of products and services before purchasing.
Responsibility to think independently- Consumer should be well bothered about what they want and need and hence make independent choices.
Responsibility to speak out- The buyer should be fearless to speak out their problems and tell to traders what they exactly want Responsibility to complain- It becomes the consumer's responsibility to express and file a complaint about their dissatisfaction with goods or services in a sincere and fair manner.
Responsibility to be an Ethical Consumer- Consumer must be fair and not engage themselves with any deceptive practice.
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumers Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith (Preamble).
The Act Inter alia, seeks to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as --
(1) right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(2) right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(3) right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
(4) right to be heard and to assured that customers' interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums.
(5) Right to seek redressal against unfair practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (6) Right to consumer education The objects are sought to be promoted and protected by the Consumer Protection Councils to be established at the Central and State levels.
The Act applies to all goods and services, except if otherwise provided by the Central Government by Notification. To provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is set up at the District, State and Central levels. The three tier system of quasi judicial bodies will observe the principle of natural justice and are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi judicial bodies have also been provided.
Thus the Consumer Protection Act is to serve the interests of the consumers. Consumer education and redressal of consumers' grievances are the two aspects of the Act. It makes good the loss a consumer suffers and increases the feeling of responsibility of the manufacturer, trader, supplier or businessman.
The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favor of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.
Extent of Consumer Protection:
While other legislations may be either punitive or preventive, the Consumer Protection Act compensates the consumer. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any law at the time being in force (Sec 3). In Maine Container Services South Pvt Ltd v Go Garments 1998 (3) SCC 247 it has been held that the Contract Act applies to all litigants before the Commissioner under the Consumers Protection Act. Passengers traveling in train suffering injuries and loss of Jewelry as a result of assault by unruly crowd are eligible for filing of complaint before State Commission is maintainable notwithstanding the provisions of sections 100 and 103 of Railways Act, 1889. The Consumer Protection Act therefore gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. Existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement is no bar to the entertainment of complaint by the Redressal Agency as the remedy under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law. However, the Consumer Forums under the Act have not taken over the jurisdiction of civil Courts. If the dispute between the parties is pending in Civil Court no Consumer Forum will adjudicate the dispute. Similarly if evidence be laid by the parties to the dispute is voluminous or complicated the parties will be referred to the appropriate Civil Court.
Consumers Protection Act, thus enshrines the rights of a consumer to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, price etc., of the goods to be protected against unfair trade practices, to seek inexpensive and expeditious redressal of grievances before the Consumer Forums. Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent piece of legislation to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation.
With the passage of time, the populace of the country is on hike and so are their opinions. Their opinion forms the basis for their interpretation, it may be a good or a bad interpretation. What would happen in the situation where people starting interpreting the laws? We might be flooded with several interpretations. The interpretations will be in such huge number that the laws will become unclear. This is the reason why lawmakers, while making the law, formulate itin accordance with the aim, set out by them, before penning down the legislations. The aim of any legislation defines the basis of the act. It becomes the ground norm of the act, based upon which the judiciary interprets the disputed texts.
The aim of any act forms the indispensable element, because it acts as the cord that delivers the real intention of the legislators behind the act. Whenever there is clash between two legislations, it is the aim of the legislation which makes the judges to derive at the endpoint in deciding which law has the superseding effect. It is through the doctrine of pith and substance that judges are able to derive at the major inclination towards one act over another act. This inclination is decided on the basis of the aim/goal of the act and the facts of that particular case.
The beneficial legislation of Consumer Protection Act aims at reducing the grievances of the all classes of customers by providing them the preferential treatment. According to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer dispute is the entity where the consumer/ customers have been given the convenient safeguards against ample exploitation like bad customer service, faulty goods or any unfair trade practices. The interest of the customers is protected by setting up, the three tier quasi-judicial consumer Redressal machinery which are at national, state and district levels as per section 9 of Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) has been enacted in light of certain concerns related to public policy and the benefit of consumer.So it is clear that this act to is in favour of the consumers and it has overriding effect on the arbitration act because this act is not in derogation of any act but in addition of another act.
So this act has been enacted in the interest of the consumers for protecting their rights. Here the complainant is a consumer and his right should have been protected by the service provider, that is LDA. It has become clear from the action of the LDA that LDA did not take precautions in acquiring the plot which was Army area. So it is the first negligence and deficiency on the part of the early. It also comes under Unfair Trade Practice because the LDA on account of his negligence and carelessness created problems for the consumers/allottees. Much time has been passed and the LDA did not pay attention to the Order of This Hon'ble Commission. Now we have to see what amount of damage, compensation, interest is payable to the complainant.
Now we have to see in the light of the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 4 SCC 65-"The Supreme Court, at the outset, reiterated the position taken in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, and held that "the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities". It further held that the power of the NCDRC extends to awarding compensation to consumers for misfeasance in the public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. Therefore, it upheld the appeals filed before it to the extent that it confirmed the jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award compensation in cases of service rendered by statutory & public authorities (the land development authorities in the present case).
As to the issue of whether the grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the NCDRC in all cases is justifiable, the Supreme Court held in the negative. It stated that "the power to and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum." It held it to be unsustainable. The Court further stated that the "Award of compensation must be under different separate heads and must vary from case to case depending on the facts of each case." The purpose of awarding compensation is to recompense for a loss or injury suffered and such compensation would therefore be proportional to the amount of loss and injury.
While considering the compensation to be awarded to the consumers in cases of deficiency of service by Development Authorities, the Court laid down a range of principles for the determination of the amount of compensation, summarised below:
To award compensation, the Forum or the Commission must determine that service has been deficient and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. While no hard and fast rule can be laid down, the Court gave a few instances where the award of compensation would be justifiable, including where possession is not handed over within the intimated period even though allotment is made and the price is paid. In such cases, the loss could be determined based on loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given. Compensation could also be the scheme has been canceled without any justifiable cause, after the allotment.
Compensation cannot be uniform and to illustrate this, the Court lays down the principle to be followed for the determination of compensation in two cases- (a) where the delivery of possession is being directed, and (b) where only the monies are directed to be returned or refunded by the Court. In case (a), the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less since in a way the aggrieved party is being compensated by an increase in the value of the property he is getting. In case (b) however, the party is suffering a greater loss since he has been deprived of the flat/plot, and his expectation of delivery of possession. He would also be denied the benefit of an increase in the value of land and the compensation thereof. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded in such cases would have to be higher than in case (a).
The Court held that "such compensation has to be worked out after looking into the facts of each case and after determining what is the amount of harassment/loss which has been caused to the consumer."
Compensation would include compensation for physical, mental, or even emotional suffering, insult, or injury or loss."
"The consumer protection laws have a wide reach and the consumers are entitled to receive compensation for deficiency in services rendered by statutory and public authorities. The Consumer Commissions have been vested with the jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation. On being satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or harassment or mental agony or oppression, it must direct the authority to pay compensation. A wide discretion has been given to determine the quantum of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer, to redress any injustice. However, it is a well-established principle that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable, and must reconcile with the loss or injury suffered. The Consumer Forum is cast with the duty to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.
This landmark decision has set a precedent on the matter of compensation to be awarded in matters relating to allotment of land by development authorities and has been relied upon in many subsequent cases of the Supreme Court. In the case of H. P. Housing Board v. Varinder Kumar Garg[(2005) 9 SCC 430] and Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar[(2005) 9 SCC 449], the Supreme Court directed the Commission to follow the principles laid down in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh in future cases."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development ..... vs. Darsh Kumar, Etc., Civil Appeal no 5796 of 2002 decided on 28 July, 2004 has held ;
"This Court has, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65, deprecated this practice. This Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental agony/ harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office. This Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury. This Court has held that the Forum or the Commission thus had to determine that there was deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office and that it has resulted in loss or injury. This Court has also laid down certain other guidelines which the Forum or the Commission has to follow in future cases.
We are informed that in spite of there being no stay, to payment of interest beyond 12% and in spite of clarification given by this Court's order (reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65), the amounts have still not been paid. We feel that for the lapse Appellants must pay interest at the rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till payment. Appellants shall also pay costs fixed at Rs.500/- in each case to the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme Court. The appellants must recover the amount paid towards costs personally from the officer/s, who were responsible for not paying even after clarification by this Court. We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as the order has been passed taking special features of the case into account. The Forum/Commission will follow the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases. The Appeals are disposed off in above terms. There will be no order as to costs."
So it is clear that the compensation and rate of interest shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be framed. In this connection some of the judgment of the Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC should be taken into account.
In the case of PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC).These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos.18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.
The Hon'ble NCDRC held that:
"Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses.
The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble State Commission, these appeals preferred before Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Hon'ble NCDRC discussed various case laws and after hearing the parties held, "Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade practice under Section 2 (nnn) of Consumer Protection Act and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under Section 2(nnn) of Consumer Protection Act."
"Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10(c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession."
Against this judgment, parties went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is:-
In Nalin Bhargava vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc. It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition of costs as compensation.
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised objections with regard to imposition of costs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When we say "cost", we mean costs alone and nothing else."
In the case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Suresh Chandra Garg, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24059/2022, Judgment dated 05.01.2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, "consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction, to sum up of the litigation which is pending for a long time. Let the order of the District Consumer Commission 06.09.2019 shall be complied with and the respondent be refunded the entire deposited amount with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a further period of 60 days from today failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum until actual payment."
Therefore it is clear that the amount shall be refunded with simple interest at the rate of 12% within 60 days from the date of judgment otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% simple interest per annum till the date of actual payment. In this case we take the cut-off date as October 2014 , and the interest shall be computed from November 1, 2014 till the date of actual payment.
These builders are just earning money from the consumers to whom they issued allotment letters and got a huge amount. They keep this amount for a long time and earn interest on it. Property dealing is that part of business where they never pay a penny to the consumers on their amounts deposited for a long-term or if they pay, they pay a meagre interest of about 5% or so but they charge 18 to 24% or more if the consumers default in depositing any instalment. It reminds us the story of "The Merchant of Venice" The Merchant of Venice is the story of a Jewish money lender Shylock who demands that an antisemitic Christian offer "a pound of flesh" as collateral against a loan. These acts of builders also remind us the age of Sahukari during ancient India and also during British Raj. Whether these builders have power to frame their own law? They put their terms and conditions in such a way that the sufferer will always be the consumer. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted for the benefits of consumers, so the courts dealing with Consumer Protection Act 1986 should come forward for their rescue. The courts are not governed by the builders but they are governed by the law, Custom and Usages. Now in the background of all the facts and also the facts of the present case, we will also discuss something more. We should also see the objects of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Now after above discussions, we came to conclusion that it is the LDA who has shown incompetency, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in relation to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled for many reliefs for which he has filed his original complaint in which no order has been passed about the reliefs. It is clear from the registered sale deed that the sale deed has been executed on 06.06.2015. After considering all these facts we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the following reliefs :
The complainant is entitled to get the interest from the opposite party at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount ₹178,783/- from the date of the respective deposits if paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from the respective date of deposit till the actual payment.
The complainant is entitled to get the compensation from the opposite party at a rate of ₹50 per day from the date of first allotment order dated 05.10.90 till the date of giving actual possession.
The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of ₹1 lakh from the opposite party on account of mental anguish with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from 05.10.90 (the date of first allotment order) till the date of execution of the sale deed ( 06.06.2015) if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
The complainant is entitled to get the flat no.128 (ROOPAYAN) at the rate of Rs.4,25,000.00 and not at the rate of ₹1,158,000/-. The excess amount paid by the component shall be returned by the opposite party to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite party shall pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite party is directed to withdraw the illegal and deficient demand notice dated 24.12.2001 and also directed to withdraw the amount of illegal interest raised against dead and infructuous allotment order dated 05.10.1990.
The complainant is entitled for a compensation of ₹20 lakhs from the opposite party regarding deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, mental torture and harassment and depression with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from 05.10.90 (the date of first allotment order) till the date of execution of the sale deed (06.06.2015) if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
Regarding relief (m) the complainant is entitled to get ₹15,000/- per month from the opposite party from 05.10.90 (the date of first allotment order) till the date of execution of the sale deed ( 06.06.2015) towards loss of rent , if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
The complaint cases are decided accordingly.
The opposite party is directed to pay the interest to the complainant at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount ₹178,783/- from the date of the respective deposits, if paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from the respective date of deposits till the actual payment.
The opposite party directed to pay to the complainant damages at a rate of ₹50/- per day from the date of first allotment order dated 05.10.90 till the date of giving actual possession (6.6.2015).
The opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of ₹1 lakh to the complainant on account of harassment with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from 05.10.90 (the date of first allotment order) till the date of execution of the sale deed (06.06.2015) if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite party is directed to provide to the complainant flat no.128 (ROOPAYAN) at the rate of Rs.4,25,000.00 and not at the rate of ₹1,158,000/-. The excess amount paid by the complainant shall be returned by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite party shall pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite party is directed to withdraw the illegal and deficient demand notice dated 24.12.2001 and also directed to withdraw the amount of illegal interest raised against dead and infructuous allotment order dated 05.10.1990.
The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of ₹ 20 lakhs regarding deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, mental torture and harassment and depression with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from 05.10.1990 (the date of first allotment order) till the date of execution of the sale deed (06.06.2015) if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
Regarding relief (m) the opposite party is directed to pay ₹ 15,000/- per month to the complainant from 05.10.90 (the date of first allotment order) till the date of execution of the sale deed (06.06.2015) towards loss of rent, if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 05.10.90 till the date of actual payment.
If any amount is paid by the opposite party to the complainant, that amount shall be adjusted accordingly.
If the judgment is not complied with, within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case, the opposite party may file execution case before this court at the cost of the opposite party.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be placed on the record of complaint no.6 of 2011.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules (Justice Ashok Kumar) (Rajendra Singh) President Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to the Record-room. (Justice Ashok Kumar) (Rajendra Singh) President Member Dated 22.11.2023 JafRi, PA I C-1 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] JUDICIAL MEMBER