State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Himank Sharma vs The Managing Director, Shalimar Estate ... on 26 May, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. 286 of 2015 Date of Institution 23.11.2015 Date of Decision 26.05.2016 Sh. Himank Sharma, Director of the Family Company named as Virgo Projects Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office : House No.1569, Phase 3B2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, being authorized by the company other Director (sister namely Ibna Sharma). ....Complainant Versus 1. The Managing Director, Shalimar Estate Pvt. Limited, Corporate Office, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8, Chandigarh. Presently at Shalimar Mall, Sector 5, Panchkula. 2. Shalimar Estate Pvt. Limited, Corporate Office, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8, Chandigarh. Presently at Shalimar Mall, Sector-5, Panchkula. ....Opposite Parties BEFORE: MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite Parties already exparte vide order dated 20.04.2016.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER In brief, the facts of the case, are that as influenced by the advertisement of the Opposite Parties, Smt. Kanchan Sharma (mother of the complainant and other Director namely Ibna Sharma) applied for the allotment of showroom at Shalimar Plaza, Site No.1, Phase-VIII, IT City, SAS Nagar, Mohali by paying initial amount of Rs.3,60,000/- vide application dated 16.02.2006. It was stated that mother of the complainant intended to use the said showroom, for running her business with the help of her mother-in-law and her children i.e. the complainant and his sister, to earn their livelihood, by way of self employment. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties allotted a C-Category Showroom having super area of 400 sq. ft. to the mother of the complainant for a total sum of Rs.36,00,000/- in an upcoming shopping mall to be constructed by the Opposite Parties. It was assured by the Opposite Parties that possession of the said showroom was to be delivered within a period of 1 ½ years from acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that a sum of Rs.23,30,000/- i.e. 70% of the total purchase amount of the said showroom was deposited with the Opposite Parties upto 28.05.2007 and rest of the amount i.e. 30% of the total price was to be paid either within 60 days from the issue of the allotment letter or in equated monthly installments in 10 years with interest @11% p.a., at the time of handing over of physical possession of the said showroom. Copies of the receipts are Annexures C-2 to C-7. It was further stated that the intention to perform the family business/self employment in an organized way, a family Company named under the style of Virgo Projects Pvt. Ltd. was got registered with the intention to generate the self employment by the said members of the family. So, upon her request, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 28.07.2007 transferred the rights qua the said proposed showroom from Mrs. Kanchan Sharma to the family Company i.e. M/s Virgo Projects Pvt. Ltd. vide letter Annexure C-8. It was further stated that after the receipt of the amount of Rs.23,30,000/- without any delay, the Opposite Parties miserably failed to perform their part of the contract. It was further stated that the complainant and her mother personally and/or through their messenger visited the office of the Opposite Parties number of times for information regarding the delivery of possession of the showroom but no satisfactory reply was ever received by them, rather upon their visit, they did not see any further progress, except the basic structure constructed by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties miserably failed to hand over physical possession of the said showroom by completing the same in all respects, as assured by them or to return the hard earned money to the complainant, despite receipt of the legal notice dated 17.10.2015 (Annexure C-10). It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act' only), was filed.
2. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, have stated that the matter is related to commercial property, as such, the complaint is not maintainable in this Commission. It was denied that the complainant intended to use the showroom for earning his livelihood and stated that the said showroom was booked by the complainant for investment purposes only, as such, the complainant did not fall within the definition of "Consumer". It was further stated that there is an arbitration clause in the application form, which was submitted by the complainant, after his signatures, and , as such, the matter is referred to the Arbitrator, as per para No.53 of the terms and conditions of the application form. It was further stated that the project was delayed due to the complainant, who has not paid the due installments in time and due to this fact, the Opposite Parties suffered huge loss. It was further stated that nobody had ever visited the office of the Opposite Parties, as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the construction of entire ten storey building including two basements had already been completed by the Opposite Parties, as all outer and inner walls, partitions, plasters, base floorings etc. are also complete and only finishing works and fittings of electrical and air conditioning works are in progress, which are pending only due to the reason that various applicants failed to deposit their dues with the Opposite Parties, despite repeated requests from time to time. It was further stated that due to this fact, the Opposite Parties suffered huge losses and were made liable to pay damages to various other customers, as per terms and condition No.12 of the application form. It was further stated that the delay was not on the part of the Opposite Parties, as it was only due to force majeure circumstances and the same was not intentional. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
3. Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties for 22.12.2015. On 22.12.2015, Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate alongwith Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties and sought time to file reply and evidence. On the next date of hearing i.e. 21.01.2016, Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties sought more time to file reply & evidence. On his request, adjournment was granted subject to payment of cost. On 08.02.2016 cost was paid & deposited and on that date, Counsel for the Opposite Parties sought more time to file reply, which was granted, subject to payment of cost. On 23.02.2016, cost was deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account and Counsel for the Opposite Parties again sought time to file reply, which was granted and the case was adjourned to 04.03.2016. On 04.03.2016, previous cost was paid and Counsel for the Opposite Parties again sought time to file reply and evidence, which was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs.6000/-, out of which, Rs.3000/- was to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account and Rs.3000/- was to be paid to the Counsel for the complainant on the next date of hearing. On 22.03.2016, Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Parties stated that the cost imposed on the last date of hearing would be positively deposited/paid on the next date of hearing and on that date, he filed written statement and again sought time to file evidence by way of detailed affidavit, which was granted and the case was adjourned to 05.04.2016. On 05.04.2016, cost of Rs.3000/- was paid to the Counsel for the complainant and even cost of Rs.3000/- imposed on 04.03.2016 was not deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. On that date, Counsel for the Opposite Parties again sought time to file evidence, which was granted subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as cost, out of which, Rs.10,000/- was to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account and Rs.10,000/- was to be paid to the Counsel for the complainant. On the next date of hearing i.e. 20.04.2016, following order was passed :-
"Case taken up today as 19.04.2016 was declared holiday.
Neither compliance to the order dated 05.04.2016 has been made nor anybody is present on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Perusal of the orders passed on file shows that many dates have been taken by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties for filing evidence. However, nothing was done. It appears that there is an attempt to delay the decision in the complaint.
In view of above facts, Opposite Parties are ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
For exparte arguments, to come up on 05.05.2016."
So, in view of the afore-extracted order, it is clearly proved that neither the Opposite Parties complied the order dated 05.04.2016 nor anybody appeared on their behalf and, as such, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
6. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, according to the Opposite Parties, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the application form, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, this Commission elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha's case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another's case (supra), this Commission in Para 19 held as under:-
"19. It was specifically observed that even in those cases, where two different redressal Agencies/Acts, have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. Taking note of a weak position, in which a consumer is set against multinational companies and other big producers, it was said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),that, where there is any ambiguity in understanding the meaning of provision of law, or where two interpretations are possible, one beneficial to the consumer should be accepted. The same view was reiterated in LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC)."
7. This Commission after dealing with the unamended/amended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 3 of 1986 Act, and in view of law laid down in judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) and Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013 and judgments of National Commission in DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013; Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited's & Ors., Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 decided on 8.6.2015 and Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors., First Appeal No. 127 of 2016, decided on 18.03.2016, came to the conclusion that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also by the National Commission in a large number of cases, Section 3 of 1986 Act provides for an additional remedy available to a consumer and the said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act. Further the remedy under the 1986 Act is cost effective and much speedier than the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Referring the matter to the Arbitrator would defeat the very purpose of General Assembly Resolution No.39/248 and the provisions of 1986 Act and in view of above, the plea raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (in that case), was rejected. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission in in Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, consumer complaint No.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016, by further holding as under:-
"20. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. In the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase a unit, in a housing project, launched by the opposite party. It was their hope that they will live therein. However, their hopes were shattered, when despite making payment of entire amount towards price, they failed to get possession of a unit, in a developed project. As per established ratio of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and also in the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), it was said that the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.
21. In view of the above, the argument raised by Counsel for the opposite party that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected".
8. Further this Commission in case titled ' Sukhjinder Singh Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd.', Complaint Case No.278 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2016, held as under:-
"Not only as above, execution of judgment/decree passed by the Consumer Foras is very easy and less time consuming. Invariably, in all the judgments passed, between one to three months' time, is granted to the judgment debtors(s) to discharge liability. If it is not so done, and the order is not stayed in the meantime by the Higher Fora, two options are available with the complainant/decree holder. Section 25 of 1986 Act provides the procedure to enforce orders by the Consumer Foras. In Sector 25 (3), it is provided that where any amount is due from any person, under an order passed by any Consumer Fora, the concerned Consumer Fora, on an application moved by the decree holder, may issue a certificate to the Collector of the District, to recover the said amount, by way of land revenue, in terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The said provision is also very stringent. The Collector is supposed to attach the holding of the judgment debtors to take the said property under his own management and control. The Collector is further supposed to manage the said property and raise all rents and profits accruing therefrom to the exclusion of the defaulter, until the decree is satisfied. The above procedure will consume at the maximum four to six months, for realization of the amount awarded. Further option is also available to a complainant/decree holder, to move an application under Section 27 of 1986 Act, which provides that where a trader or a person against whom, a complaint was made, fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Fora, such party would entail award of punishment of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one month, but may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and may be extended upto Rs.10,000/-, or both. This provision is very effective, as and when application is moved under Section 27 of 1986 Act, for fear of imprisonment, it is seen that immediately the judgment debtor(s) make an attempt to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Foras. Whereas, to the contrary Section 36 of 1996 Act, provides that award shall be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner, as if it was a decree of a Court. Such a procedure is very costly and time consuming. Executing a decree would virtually mean fighting one more litigation, in a Court, to get enforcement of the award. If such a procedure is adopted, it will defeat the very purpose and spirit of 1986 Act. Accordingly, in this view of the matter and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected."
9. The National Commission, recently, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016, held as under :-
"In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 andNational Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986."
10. In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the plea of the Opposite Parties, mentioned in the written statement, stands rejected.
11. To defeat claim of the complainant, another objection raised by the Opposite Parties, in their written statement, was that the complainant did not fall within the definition of "Consumer", as the matter is related to commercial property and he booked the showroom in the shopping small of the Opposite Parties for investment purposes. After going through the documents and record of the case, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Opposite Parties because the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that the complainant and his family members would be using the said showroom for earning their livelihood by way of self employment. So, it is clearly proved that the complainant purchased the said showroom for earning his and his family members livelihood.
It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja's case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the showroom, in question, was purchased by the complainant for investment purposes. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
12. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the showroom, was to be given to the complainant. According to the complainant, the Opposite Parties assured that possession of the showroom was to be delivered within a period of 1 ½ years from acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 28.02.2006 i.e. by 28.08.2007 but after receipt of the huge amount of Rs.23,30,000/- they failed to deliver the same nor refunded the amount to him, despite repeated requests. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties mentioned in their written statement that as per terms and condition No.12 of the application form, the company/promoters shall endeavour to give possession of showroom to those allottees whose payment shall be regular as per payment plan of the scheme within two years from issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter subject to force majeure circumstances and on receipt of all payment as per the payment plan of the allotment. But no application form alongwith terms and conditions was filed by either of the parties. If we believe the contention of the Opposite Parties, that possession was to be delivered within a period of two years from the issuance of acceptance-cum-demand letter i.e. latest by February, 2008 but despite receipt of the huge amount from the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same. By making a misleading statement/assurance, that possession of the showroom, was to be delivered within a maximum period of two years, from the issuance of acceptance-cum-demand letter, and by not abiding by the commitments, made by them, they (Opposite Parties) were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
13. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, on account of delay in offering possession/non delivering of possession by the Opposite Parties by the stipulated period, the complainant is entitled to seek refund of Rs.23,30,000/- alongwith interest. It is the admitted fact that the complainant booked commercial showroom in Shalimar Plaza, I.T. City, Mohali, which was accepted by the Opposite Parties vide acceptance-cum- demand letter dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure C-1). The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.23,30,000/- in respect of the showroom, in question, to the Opposite Parties. It is clearly proved from the last receipt (Annexure C-7) that the complainant deposited the last installment in the year May, 2007 and till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. upto 23.11.2015, as such, about 8 years had passed but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the showroom, to the complainant, despite repeated requests. Even when the complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.10.2015 (Annexure C-10) to the Opposite Parties through his Counsel, they did not bother. So, the Opposite Parties had no right, to retain the hard earned money of the complainant, without rendering him, any service. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties were not in a position to deliver possession of the showroom to the complainant. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to refund of amount of Rs.23,30,000/-, deposited by him.
In a similar case relating to delayed possession, titled as Guninder Jeet Singh Salh Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Consumer Complaint No. 113 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 23.09.2015, noting ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), it was said that the consumer can claim refund. In the instant case, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties have not fulfilled their part of the Agreement and failed to develop the infrastructure and neither offered/delivered possession of the unit nor refunded the amount to the complainant. The complainant, thus, incurred financial loss. Hard earned money, deposited by the complainant, towards price of unit, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Parties, for a number of years. Had this amount been deposited by the complainant, in some bank, or had he invested the same, in some business, he would have earned handsome returns thereon. It is therefore, held that the Opposite Parties, by neither delivering possession of the showroom, nor refunding the amount to the complainant, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, if the amount of Rs.23,30,000/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @15% P.A., on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of deposits, is granted, that will serve the ends of justice.
14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant(s). The word 'compensation' is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling them (Consumer Foras), to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of 'compensation'. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainant(s). The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, for a number of years, as he failed to deliver physical possession of showroom, in question, to him. The complainant, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. Compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed, as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.23,30,000/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 15% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.
In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) & (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @18% P.A., instead of interest @ 15% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest @15% P.A., on the amounts, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.
16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
May 26, 2016.
[DEV RAJ] PRESIDING MEMBER (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER rb