State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manjit Kaur vs The Alaknanda Cghs Ltd. on 22 March, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No: 19 of 2019
Date of Institution: 14.01.2019
Date of Decision : 22.03.2022
Manjit Kaur D/o Shri Gulzar Singh, resident of House No.1543,
Sector 15, Panchkula.
.....Complainant
Versus
The Alaknanda Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.GH-45,
Sector 56, Gurgaon-122002 through its President.
...Opposite Party
CORAM: Hon‟ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.
Ms. Manjula, Member
Present: Shri Pardeep Solath, counsel for the complainant.
Shri D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri Tushar
Sharma, counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The instant complaint has been instituted by Manjit Kaur- complainant seeking issuance of directions to the opposite party to handover vacant physical possession of the flat No.402 allotted in her name situated at The Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Plot No.GH-45, Sector 56, Gurgaon alongwith interest @ 18% per annum upon the amount of Rs.20,62,450/- paid by her towards the price of the flat from the date of deposit till the date of payment as well as Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 2 cost and expenses incurred besides Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. It is the case of the complainant that she is having one son, namely, Vijay Inder Singh and when he graduated, the complainant wanted to shift to Gurgaon for higher studies of her son at Gurgaon/Delhi and to prepare for civil services. The complainant and her husband decided to go in for a flat in Gurgaon City. She came to know from her friends that a few persons were forming a group housing building society and in order to get the society registered, it required 200 members. Being eligible in all respect, she applied for membership of the society. She paid the membership and admission fee as per the rules and, accordingly, she admitted as member of the society. The society was registered on 06.12.1995 under the provisions of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Being member of the society, her name is there in the L-Form containing list of members at the time of registration of society. The society participated in the Group Housing Scheme, 1998 launched by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and was allotted Plot No.GH-45, Sector 56, Gurgaon vide allotment letter memo No.CTP- HUDA/1504 dated 26.03.1999. The opposite party started demanding land cost for purchasing the plot as well as for construction from the members of the society. The tentative cost of the land was Rs.2,80,000/- per member whereas tentative construction cost was Rs.15,00,000/-. Several letters in this regard were written to the members of the society and the payment receipts C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 3 were issued. The share certificate dated 01.10.2003 was issued in her name.
3. Further case of the complainant is that she had limited source of income and thus availed loan from HDFC Limited for the payment of demand raised by the opposite party. The complainant paid all the amount as and when demanded by the society. She paid a total sum of Rs.21,30,110/-, which was in excess of the demands and therefore, Rs.67,660/- was refunded by the society to her. The loan was sanctioned vide letter dated 15.07.2004 and NOC issued by the society on 20.07.2004. The No Due Certificate regarding full and final payment of the loan was issued.
4. Further case of the complainant is that the then President of the society, namely R.S. Chaudhary, was known to her family and thus she trusted him regarding the demand raised by the society as well as status of construction informed. The complainant was informed that the construction of flat will be completed in the year 2007 and the possession of the flats to be handed over to her in the month of April, 2007. She waited for several months and the then President informed her that though the other formalities of the flat had been completed and she was allotted Flat No.E-402 but as some permissions from the local authority were pending, the flat will be handed over after getting completion and NOC from the concerned authorities. The complainant was not having good health and therefore had no time to get the flat physically checked at Gurgaon. The complainant trusted the then President and waited for C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 4 possession of the flat to be handed over to her. She waited for several months but the possession of the flat was not handed over to her inspite of paying the entire cost of the flat. The complainant even visited the house of the then President but of no use. She had been running from pillar to post for almost ten years but possession of the flat was not handed over to her. In the month of December, 2018, she went to Gurgaon to enquire about the status of the flat when she came to know that the flat of the complainant had been given on rent by the opposite party and used for profit and gain. She was further shocked to find that for many years, she was being misguided and misinformed by the opposite party. The opposite party had misused the flat of the complainant and malafidely did not hand over the possession of the flat to her, which caused huge loss to the complainant. Due to inordinate delay on the part of the opposite party, she suffered not only financial loss but also mental harassment and agony at the hands of the opposite party. Hence the present complaint.
5. The complaint has been contested by the opposite party on the ground, interalia, that the complaint filed by the complainant is beyond limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party also pleaded that the possession of the flat was to be taken in the year 2007 after draw of lots by providing the eligibility to the member of the society by producing the record. However, the complainant was not able to submit the proof of eligibility. Now the complaint has been filed after 12 years, which is C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 5 barred by limitation. Other than the limitation and eligibility of the complainant, no other objection was raised.
6. It is also submitted by the opposite party that the complainant had submitted application for becoming member of the society by paying Rs.100/- as share money as well as admission fee of Rs.10/- totaling Rs.110/-. She was accordingly enrolled as member of the society on 14.12.1995 and gave her address in the application for allotment as House No.1543, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana and permanent address of Prem Nagar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Punjab. It is further submitted by the opposite party that as per Group Housing Scheme, 1998 floated by HUDA, the eligibility conditions for the societies and members were as under:-
"The following societies comprising of members who belong to or are residents of or are working in Haryana State including Chandigarh for the last one year are eligible to apply for under Group Housing Scheme 98."
7. Further as per the bye laws of the society duly approved by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, the eligibility condition was as under:-
"3. A person shall be eligible for admission as a member of the Society, if he;
(i) belongs to or is a resident of or is working in Haryana State including Chandigarh for the last one year at the time of becoming member of the society and qualifies for any of the following categories of societies.
(a) GENERAL: Societies consisting of members who belong to or are residents of Haryana or are working in Haryana State including Chandigarh for the last one year.
C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 6
(b) E.W.S : Societies consisting of such members whose total family income does not exceed Rs.2500/- per month. The member should belong to Haryana, or resident of or working in Haryana State or Chandigarh for the last one year;
(c) HARYANA GOVT. EMPLOYEES : Societies consisting of employees of Haryana Government, its Boards and Corporations, retired employees of Haryana Govt. Haryana Universities, employees of Government sponsored coop. organizations such as Hafed, Sugarfed, Coop. Apex Bank and Authorities such as Command Area Development Authority;
(d) CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES: Societies consisting of employees of Central Government, its Corporations and undertakings, University employees, Defence Personnel, Bank employees."
8. As per eligibility condition No.3, a person is eligible to become a member of the society; (i) if he belongs to the State of Haryana; (ii) or is a resident of Haryana; (iii) or is working in the State of Haryana, including Chandigarh for the last one year at the time of becoming member of the society.
9. The complainant had given the address of Panchkula at the time of becoming the member. The society had been writing letters to all members including the complainant for payment of installments on account of land cost and construction. After the construction of the flat was over, a meeting of the general body of the society was held on 24.03.2007 for holding the draw of lots. The complainant and other members were required to attend the general body meeting and clear all dues, if any before 24.03.2007 vide letter C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 7 dated 10.03.2007. As regards complainant is concerned, an amount of Rs.67,660/- was found to have been paid in excess by her, which was refunded vide cheque No.298209 dated 25.03.2007. In the draw of lots, the complainant was allotted dwelling unit No.E-402 and she was informed at the address given by her vide letter No.20308 dated 26.03.2007. The complainant showed herself to be resident of Chandigarh. As such, she was not eligible for allotment of the flat. In her affidavit, she mentioned herself to be Manjit Kaur wife of Shri Vijay Singh, resident of Kothi No.62, Sector 6, Jind. A copy of the driving licence was submitted in which Manjit Kaur was shown to be wife of Shri Vijay Singh. Earlier, a registered letter was written/sent at her House No.1543, Sector 15, Panchkula, which was received back on 10.10.2002 stating thereupon that no such person resided at the given address. The complainant was required to execute an agreement which she did on 06.06.2007. She executed the agreement giving her address as Manjit Kaur wife of Shri Vijay Singh, resident of Kothi No.62, Sector 6, Jind. Submitting that the frequent change of address led to the belief that the complainant was not the resident of State of Haryana, therefore, letter No.21654 dated 12.11.2007 was written to the complainant requiring her to submit the documents for verification of her eligibility within 15 days i.e. (i) Voter Card/Voter List (ii) Ration Card (iii) House Tax Receipt. The complainant submitted a photocopy of driving licence showing her address as House No.62, Scheme No.6, Jind. Thereafter letter dated 05.11.2007 was written to Dhoop Singh son of Bhoop Singh, House C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 8 No.62, Scheme No.6, Jind for verification. It was enquired as to whether Smt. Manjit Kaur ever resided in House No.62, Sector 6, Jind or not alongwith period of stay, whether Manjit Kaur was a tenant and has any rent receipt in support of the tenancy issued or Smt. Manjit Kaur was still residing in House No.62, Sector 6, Jind. A letter dated 05.11.2007 was issued followed by a reminder No.21714 dated 22.12.2007. Instead of supplying the documents, reply dated 29.11.2007 was received from the complainant in which it was mentioned that in terms of the conditions of the allotment now amended by removing the Haryana-Centric conditions of eligibility, the society was not entitled to insist upon such whimsical proofs of eligibility nor they could lawfully ask the members to file the affidavits. It was further mentioned that the rules/bye laws which governed the allotment and enjoyment do not provide any cause of eligibility. The reply given by the complainant clearly showed that the complainant did not belong to the State of Haryana or a resident of Haryana or working in the State of Haryana including Chandigarh for the last one year at the time of becoming member of the society. Even now also she was not the resident of the State of Haryana or belonged to the State of Haryana. On the other hand, her husband had retired from the service of State of Punjab, therefore, she was not able to give any proof of her eligibility because of which she is not entitled to the allotment of the flat. As regards change of conditions is concerned, even the opposite party had applied to erstwhile HUDA to change the eligibility conditions but erstwhile HUDA refused. The changes were C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 9 introduced for the Group Housing Schemes i.e. Group Housing Schemes, 2005 and not for the Group Housing Scheme of 1998. The society had never refused to give the possession of the flat but it was the complainant, who failed to give the eligibility proof as demanded by the society. As such, she could not be given the possession of the flat. Accordingly, the opposite party prayed for dismissing the complaint.
10. In support of her case, the complainant filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 L-Form, Ex.C-2 Letters (colly), Ex.C-3 payment receipts, Ex.C-4 Share Certificate, Ex.C-5 letter dated 15.07.2004, Ex.C-6 HUDA GHS, 2005, Ex.C-7 judgment, Ex.C-8 judgment, Ex.C-9 letter dated 22.12.2020 and Ex.C-10 list.
11. On the other hand, opposite party filed the affidavit (Ex.OPW1/A) of Surender Kumar, President, The Alaknanda Coop. Group Housing Society Limited, Plot No.GH-45, Sector 56, Gurgaon and tendered documents i.e. application Ex.OP-1, letter dated 10.03.2007 Ex.OP-2, letter dated 26.03.2007 Ex.OP-3, affidavit alongwith driving licence Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-4/A, envelope Ex.OP-5, agreement Ex.OP-6, letter dated 12.11.2007 Ex.OP-7, letter dated 05.11.2007 Ex.OP-8, letter dated 22.12.2007 Ex.OP-9, letter dated 29.11.2007 Ex.OP-10, copy of interim order of National Commission Annexure OP-11, affidavit of President of the Society dated 05.03.2014 Annexure OP-12, application dated 05.12.2015 alongwith affidavit of filing additional affidavit of the President of the society Annexure OP-13, written submissions of the society before the C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 10 National Commission Annexure OP-14, copy of final order dated 13.03.2018 of the National Commission Annexure OP-15, copy of letter to HUDA for permission to delete the condition Annexure OP-16 and copy of letter dated 15.12.2004 rejecting the proposal by HUDA Annexure OP-17.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.
13. In the present complaint, following points emerge for consideration:-
(i) Whether the complaint filed is time barred?
(ii) Whether the complainant was not eligible to become member of the opposite party society at the time of enrolment?
(iii) Whether there was any deficiency in rendering service or negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? and,
(iv) Whether the complainant is entitled for the possession of the flat alongwith interest on the amount paid?
14. There is no dispute that the complainant is member of the society since its inception. She paid the entire land cost and flat cost amounting to Rs.20,62,450/- and excess amount of Rs.67,660/- was refunded by the opposite party to the complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant was allotted Flat No.E-402 in the draw of lots held on 24.03.2007. It is also a factual position that the complainant raised loan from HDFC Ltd on 15.07.2004 and finally repaid on 09.05.2019. Undisputedly, neither the membership of the flat of the complainant was cancelled nor she was refunded any amount till date. The opposite party has not delivered the possession C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 11 of the flat on the ground that the complainant became member of the society in the year 1995 but she was not eligible on the ground of her residence. It is also not denied that the flat is rented by the opposite party by showing that the society could use the flat the way it likes in order to check the deterioration of the flat. The only question which remains to be considered is whether the opposite party could retain the flat without any default by the complainant.
15. The ground raised by the opposite party that the complainant was not resident of State of Haryana at the time of becoming member of the society is not only baseless but also absurd. The ground seems to be a vindictive tool used after 12 years of becoming member and after taking all the installments and cost of the flat. A bare perusal of the eligibility condition prescribed in the Group Housing Scheme, 1998 floated by the HUDA shows that to become member of the society, the person should either belong to State of Haryana or resident of or working in the State of Haryana including Chandigarh for the last one year. Similarly, the bye law No.3(a)(iii) of the society/opposite party is cyclostyled copy of the conditions of the Group Housing Scheme, 1998. Merely if a person belongs to Haryana but does not reside there is also eligible. Also a person who resided in State of Haryana or Chandigarh for even one year is eligible to become member of the society. There is no condition that the member of the society must reside for all times in the State of Haryana. In the present case, at the time when the complainant submitted application for becoming member of the society (Ex.OP-1), C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 12 she had given her address as House No.1543, Sector 15, Panchkula. Thereafter, at the time of taking loan from HDFC Ltd, she had given her address as House No.599, IAS/IPS Colony, Sector 49A, Chandigarh. The opposite party vide letter dated 26.03.2007 (Ex.OP-
3) intimated the complainant about the draw of lots at the same address i.e. House No.599, IAS/IPS Colony (Harswapan Apartments), Sector 49A, Chandigarh. All the letters were sent by the opposite party to the complainant at the same address. Thereafter, the complainant resided at House No.62, Sector 6, Jind, Haryana. She had given driving licence of her husband Shri Vijay Singh as address proof and also submitted agreement and affidavit etc at the same address. There is thus sufficient evidence that the complainant resided at Panchkula at the time of becoming member of the society and then at Chandigarh or Jind City in the coming years.
16. At the time of arguments, the counsel for the complainant placed on record letter bearing application No.36800 dated 22.12.2020 sent by the opposite party to her at House No.1543, Sector 15, Panchkula demanding the PAN Card, Aadhar Card and Voter Card. It appears that the opposite party is trying to create fresh ground during the pendency of the complaint. The opposite party is acting malafidely by asking the complainant to give proof of her residence again and again. The eligibility condition only required that the residence of the applicant/member should be within State of Haryana or Chandigarh at the time of becoming member of the society and not thereafter. The opposite party deliberately harassed C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 13 the complainant by way of frivolous letters and did not handover the possession of the flat. The complainant had become member of the society by a resolution passed by the society. As per Section 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 no resolution could be challenged after 6 years of its passing. Thus, the opposite party cannot be permitted to attach the eligibility condition of all the members after 12 years of becoming member and, that too, after taking complete payment of the flat. Thus, the complainant cannot be removed from the membership of the society.
17. Letters dated 05.11.2007 (Ex.OP-8) and 22.12.2007 (Ex.OP-9) were sent by the opposite party on wrong address which did not exist. It appeared that the opposite party malafidely sent letters to House No.62, Scheme No.6, Jind whereas the address of the complainant at that time was House No.62, Sector 6, Jind. There was no area in the name of Scheme No.6. The opposite party did not handover the possession of the flat and also did not return the payment to the complainant. It shows that the opposite party was acting arbitrarily and malafidely, which amounts to deficiency in service.
18. An identical issue was raised in case of Amardeep Singh Bhatia, a member of the same society. Feeling aggrieved against cancellation of his membership and the decision taken by the Management of the society, Amardeep Singh Bhatia approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1442 of 2016 titled „Amardeep Singh Bhatia Vs. C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 14 Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Others‟. The Hon‟ble High Court while allowing the appeal vide judgment dated 02.03.2017 held as under:-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is a case where equity is loaded in favour of the appellant. The collusion, per se, as inferred by the learned Single Judge, does not manifest itself for the reason that it is not only the Manager who wrote a communication to the appellant at the initial stage but subsequent communications have been made by the President himself. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the appellant was in collusion with some lower functionary. All through, the appellant has been conveyed the intention of the Society to include him as a Member provided he satisfies the ingredients such as furnishing of certain documents including an affirmation that he belongs to the "State of Haryana including Chandigarh". It is nobody's case that the appellant has misled the Society or has projected wrong information. Having resided in Chandigarh, he was led to believe by the Society itself of his eligibility and entitlement which was followed up affirmatively by issuing a share certificate and also a dwelling unit. The appellant also took loan for the same and would have suffered immense financial consequences on account thereof. It would be, thus, too harsh to oust him from consideration altogether particularly when he does not seem to be at fault at all. There would be another aspect of the case of the appellant that his wife belongs to Haryana and if that be so, the Society, with permission of the HUDA authorities or any other competent authority could have considered alternatively a change in favour of his wife as well. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge was not C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 15 wrong in his conclusions if a strict interpretation was to be adopted regarding eligibility but the fact remains the appellant was not at fault. By noticing the aforesaid facts, we would deem it appropriate to interfere and direct that the appellant be considered for membership of the Society particularly when the HUDA itself has dispensed with such condition of eligibility in subsequent schemes implying such a condition to be an unnecessary appendage."
19. Even the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Civil Appeal No.18734 of 2017 titled „Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Another Vs. Amardeep Singh Bhatia & Others‟ filed against the judgment dated 02.03.2017 observed as follows:-
"We have heard counsel for the parties.
We may note that the Haryana Government which has allotted the land itself states that there is no difficulty in the allotment of respondent No.1 as per the terms of the allotment of the land.
We recall the leave granted in this matter and dismiss the petition.
However, the possession be handed over within one month from today."
20. The case of the complainant is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Bhatia in Civil Appeal No.18734 of 2017.
21. The other objection of the opposite party that the complaint is time barred is also not acceptable. The opposite party is withholding the possession of the flat as well as the payment of the complainant since 2007. Therefore, the cause is continuing one and C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 16 the complaint is maintainable. It has been held by the Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in „Vivekanand Construction Company Vs. Suraj Rattan Mundra, 2013(3) CPJ 111 that cause of action accrues with delivery of physical possession and continues till the deed of conveyance is registered. Thus, the complaint was well within limitation. In Daljit Singh Sandhu Vs. BCL Homes Limited, 2016 (3), CPJ, 152, the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the project was advertised in 2011 and Rs.16.5 lacs deposited in 2013 but neither the possession of the unit offered to the complainant for want of construction at the site nor amount deposited or refunded, held that the cause of action continued. Therefore, the complaint is not barred by time. It was a case of failed promise and deceit on the part of the opposite parties in the said case, which was never disclosed to the complainant that entire project land stood mortgaged with the bank. When promoter/builder violates material condition in not handing over the possession of the unit, it is not obligatory for the purchaser to accept possession after that date. The opposite party had no right to retain hard earned money of the complainant as there was deficiency in service, the refund was directed with interest @ 12% per annum. Similar view was taken by the Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Bhagya Laxmi Construction Vs. Manoranjan Basak, 2013(3), CPJ 75. The cause of action being continuous in nature, the agreement between the parties for purchase of flat not denied and there being no denial in C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 17 receipt of the agreement, the cause of action continued to exist as neither possession delivered nor conveyance executed in favour of the complainant therein.
22. In view of the above, it can safely be held that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the opposite party can be required to handover possession of the flat to the complainant.
23. With regard to compensation, this Commission is of the view that the opposite party has admittedly used the flat of the complainant and earned money by renting it out. As such, the complainant is entitled to the rent received by the opposite party from her flat. The city of Gurgaon is a class A city having a very high rental value. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month from 26.03.2007 to 25.03.2012 then Rs.25,000/- per month from 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2017 and thereafter Rs.30,000/- per month from 26.03.2017 till the actual delivery of the possession.
24. Resultantly, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party is directed:-
(i) to handover the vacant physical possession of the flat No.E-402 in the name of the complainant situated at The Alaknanda Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.GH-45, Sector 56, Gurgaon within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order;
C.C. No.19 of 2019 Manjit Kaur Vs. The Alaknanda CGHS Ltd. 18
(ii) to pay amount of rent received by the opposite party @ Rs.20,000/- per month from 26.03.2007 to 25.03.2012 then Rs.25,000/- per month from 26.03.2012 to 25.03.2017 and thereafter Rs.30,000/- per month from 26.03.2017 till the actual delivery of the possession and whatever the amount is found payable to the complainant, the same shall be paid by the opposite party alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 26.03.2007 i.e. offer of possession till actual delivery of possession of dwelling unit;
(iii) the complainant shall be further entitled to lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- due to causing of mental agony and physical harassment due to deficiency in providing in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the opposite party; and
(iv) the complainant shall be further entitled to get litigation charges to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party.
The entire exercise shall be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the provisions enshrined under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be attracted.
Announced (Manjula) (T.P.S. Mann) 22.03.2022 Member President UK