State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B K Tewari vs Sahara Prime City Ltd on 7 December, 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. CC/145/2014 ( Date of Filing : 13 Oct 2014 ) 1. B K Tewari Flate no 304 A-5 Blue Sky akriti Eko City Bhopal ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Sahara Prime City Ltd Sahara India Centre Fourth Floor 2 kapoorThala Aliganj Lucknow ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 07 Dec 2023 Final Order / Judgement राज्य उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग , उत्तर प्रदेश , लखनऊ। सुरक्षित परिवाद सं0- 145/2014 बृजेश कुमार तिवारी पुत्र श्री के0पी0 तिवारी निवासी - फ्लैट संख्या 304, ए-5, ब्लू स्काई, आकृति ईको सिटी, भोपाल (मध्य प्रदेश) । .......... परिवादी। बनाम 1.
सहारा प्राईम सिटी लिमिटेड मुख्य कार्यालय : सहारा इण्डिया सेण्टर, आठवां तल, 2, कपूरथला कॉम्प्लेक्स, अलीगंज, लखनऊ-226024.
2. सहारा प्राईम सिटी लिमिटेड/सहारा इण्डिया कामर्शियल कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, मुख्य कार्यालय : सहारा इण्डिया सेण्टर, आठवां तल, 2, कपूरथला कॉम्प्लेक्स, अलीगंज, लखनऊ-226024.
4. सहारा सिटी होम्स मार्केटिंग एण्ड सेल्स कारपोरेशन/सहारा प्राईम सिटी लिमिटेड, कार्यालय : 64, नवयुग मार्केट, गाजियाबाद द्वारा प्रबन्धक/अधिकृत अधिकारी।
................. विपक्षीगण।
समक्ष:-
1. मा0 श्री राजेन्द्र सिंह, सदस्य।
2. मा0 श्री विकास सक्सेना, सदस्य।
परिवादी की ओर से उपस्थित: श्री प्रतीक सक्सेना विद्वान अधिवक्ता।
विपक्षीगण की ओर से उपस्थित : श्री ए0के0 श्रीवास्तव विद्वान अधिवक्ता।
दिनांक :- 15-01-2024.
मा0 श्री राजेन्द्र सिंह , सदस्य द्वारा उदघोषित निर्णय परिवादी बृजेश कुमार तिवारी द्वारा यह परिवाद अन्तर्गत धारा-17 उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम 1986, विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध योजित किया गया है।
संक्षेप में परिवादी का कथन है कि परिवादी के द्वारा विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा प्रचलित योजनाओं के एवं विपक्षीगणों के नाम एवं व्यापार में प्रतिष्ठा के झांसे में आकर दिनांक 31-03-2005 को, विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा गाजियाबाद में प्रचलित योजना ''सहारा सिटी होम्स'' के स्वर्ण/रजत योजना के तहत Gorgeous Type - C (STILT PLUS 9 FLOORS) 2 BEDR00M FLAT बुक कराया था तथा इसके सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी संख्या 3 के कार्यालय में रसीद संख्या 010154206694 के माध्यम से 83,750/- रूपये जमा किये गये थे, जिसकी रसीद एवं प्रमाण पत्र विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा दिनांक 05-04-2005 को जारी की गयी थी।
विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में एक पत्र दिनांक 25-05-2005 को परिवादी को जारी किया गया था, जिसमें परिवादी को एक कण्ट्रोल नम्बर 19511200037 आवंटित किया गया था। जिसके अनुसार परिवादी को उक्त फ्लैट के कुल मूल्य का 10 प्रतिशत जमा करना था। इसके बाद परिवादी ने 2007 तक विभिन्न रसीदों के माध्यम से विपक्षीगण के पास 3,31,175/- रू0 जमा किया तथा अपने फ्लैट के बारे में जानकारी चाही तो बताया गया कि राज्य सरकार से कुछ अनापत्ति प्राप्त करनी है, जिसमें समय लग रहा है, इस कारणसे कुछ समय लग रहा है आप चिन्ता न करें।
इसके कुछ समय के बाद परिवादी को बताया गया कि कुछ कारणों से गाजियाबाद का प्रोजेक्ट समय से शुरू नहीं हो पा रहा है, इस कारण से गाजियाबाद के स्थान पर लखनऊ में आपको फ्लैट आवंटित किया जा रहा है। चूँकि परिवादी का पैसा फस गया था और गाजियाबाद जैसी महगी एवं उच्च स्तरीय जगह के लिए ही उसने फ्लैट बुक कराया था, परन्तु जब उसको कोई अन्य विकल्प नहीं मिला और न ही उसके जमा पैसा की वापसी का कोई आसार दिख रहा था तो उसके द्वारा विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा दिये गये एक मात्र विकल्प के अन्तर्गत लखनऊ में उसी मूल्य पर दूसरा फ्लैट लेने के आफर को इस कारण से भी स्वीकार कर लिया गया कि चलो विपक्षीगणों का मुख्य कार्यालय लखनऊ में है एवं लखनऊ के प्रोजेक्ट में किसी प्रकार की कोई हीला-हवाली नहीं होगी और समय से ही उसको फ्लैट मिल जायेगा। विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा भी परिवादी को यह विश्वास दिलाया गया था कि लखनऊ में समय से फ्लैट का कब्जा मिल जायेगा।
इसके पश्चात् विपक्षीगण ने दिनांक 24-06-2008 को परिवादी को पत्र के माध्यम से सूचित किया कि परिवादी के उसी कण्ट्रोल नम्बर पर सहारा सिटी होम, लखनऊ में एक दूसरा फ्लैट सं0-सी-19/402, टाइप-2 का 2 शयन कक्ष का चौथे तल पर कुल 83.30 वर्गमीटर का एक फ्लैट आवंटित कर दिया गया है, जिसका कुल मूल्य 17,38,594/- रू0 है, जो कि भुगतान नियमित किश्त योजना के तहत किया जाना था। इसके पश्चात् विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा दिनांक 23-09-2008 को उक्त फ्लैट का आवंटन पत्र भी निर्गत किया गया, जिसके साथ भुगतान करने का विवरण भी संलग्न था। इसके पश्चात् परिवादी को यह विश्वास हो गया कि इस बार शायदउसको समय से फ्लैट मिल जायेगा क्योंकि विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा परिवादी को यह बताया गया था कि लखनऊ के सारे प्रोजेक्टों की जानकारी स्वयं सहारा श्री सुब्रत राय के द्वारा समय-समय पर ली जाती है और उनके सख्त निर्देश हैं कि लखनऊ के किसी प्रोजेक्ट में किसी प्रकार की कोई देरी अथवा किसी प्रकार की कोई गुणवत्ता में कमी नहीं होनी चाहिए। विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा परिवादी को यह विश्वास दिलाया गया कि उसको सितम्बर, 2011 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।
इसके पश्चात् परिवादी ने दिनांक 20-05-2009 को को एच0डी0एफ0सी0 बैंक से ऋण लिया ताकि विपक्षीगणों को समय से भुगतान हो सके और उसको उसका फ्लैट समय से प्राप्त हो सके। इसके पश्चात् परिवादी के द्वारा विपक्षीगणों को नियमित रूप से भुगतान किया जाने लगा और बैंक को भी मय ब्याज के नियमित रूप से भुगतान करना आरम्भ कर दिया। इसके पश्चात् परिवादी के द्वारा विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा आवंटित फ्लैट के निर्माण के सम्बन्ध में जानकारी करनी चाही गयी तो उसको कोई जानकारी नहीं प्राप्त हुई, जिस पर उसके द्वारा स्वयं लखनऊ आकर उक्त् प्रोजेक्ट के सम्बन्ध में जानकारी प्राप्त की गयी तो उसे मालूम हुआ कि परियोजना का कार्य अत्यधिक धीमी गति से चल रहा है और स्थानीय मजदूरों-मिस्त्रियों के द्वारा बिना किसी इंजीनियरों की देख-रेख के चल रहा है एवं निर्माण सामग्री भी निम्न स्तर की थी। परिवादी के द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में विपक्षीगणों को सूचित भी किया गया था परन्तु उनके द्वारा कोई सन्तोषजनक उत्तर नहीं दिया गया अपितु परिवादी को यह कह कर टाल दिया गया कि जब बिल्डिंग बन जाये तब देखियेगा। इसके पश्चात् परिवादी के द्वारा नियमित रूप से विपक्षीगणों को उनके द्वारा दिये गये ई-मेल पर उक्त फ्लैट के सन्दर्भ में मेल भेजा जता रहा परन्तु विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा कोई भी मेल का जवाब नहीं दिया गया।
विपक्षीगण द्वारा मेल का कोई जवाब न देने के कारण परिवादी पुन: दिनांक 22-02-2011 को स्थल निरीक्षण के लिए गया तब उसे मालूम हुआ कि वहॉं पर मात्र प्रथम तल का स्लैब पड़ रहा था तथा शेष कोई कार्य नहीं हुआ था, जबकि विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा परिवादी से यह वादा किया गया था कि उनके द्वारा सितम्बर, 2011 में उक्त फ्लैट का कब्जा परिवादी को दे दिया जायेगा। परिवादी के द्वारा वहॉं पर जब इंजीनियरों से बात की गयी तो उनके द्वारा कहा गया कि अभी कुछ नहीं बता सकते हैं कि कब तक बिल्डिंग बन पायेगी और आपको अन्य कोई भी जानकारी लेनी हो तो आप कार्यालय में जा कर बात करें। परिवादी जब विपक्षीगणों के लखनऊ के कार्यालय में पहुँचा तो उसको कुछ भी बताने से इन्कार कर दिया गया तथा कहा गया कि आपको फ्लैट समय से प्राप्त हो जायेगा, परन्तु उसके पश्चात् भी विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी और आज तक उनके द्वारा कोई जवाब नहीं दिया गया एवं न ही उसके फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया गया।
इसके बाद भी परिवादी के द्वारा विपक्षीगणों को कई मेल भेजे गये, परन्तु जब विपक्षीगण ने परिवादी के ई-मेल का कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया तब उसने मार्च, 2011 से बैंक को विपक्षीगण को भुगतान करने से रोग दिया, किन्तु तब तक परिवादी कुल 17,38,594/- रू0 के भुगतान के सापेक्ष 15,50,000/- रू0 अदा कर चुका था परन्तु उसको दूर-दूर तक उक्त फ्लैट को पाने का कोई आसार नहीं दिख रहा था और वह विपक्षीगणों की लापरवाही के कारण बैंक को ब्याज देते-देते एवं मकान का किराया देते-देते आर्थिक रूप से टूटने लगा था। इसके पश्चात् वह विपक्षीगण को सन् 2014 तक ई-मेल भेजता रहा, किन्तु कोई उत्तर उसे नहीं दिया गया। विपक्षीगण ने उसे एक पत्र दिनांक 21-05-2014 को भेजा, जिसमें उससे कुछ और समय देने की मांग की गयी। इसी दौरान् विपक्षी सं0-2 को एक अन्य मामले में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने जेल में निरूद्ध कर दिया, जिस पर परिवादी को यह अहसास होने लगा कि विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा परिवादी को दिये गये सेवा में वायदों को पूरा नहीं किया जायेगा और इसी कारण से वह परिवादी के द्वारा भेजे गये ई-मेलों का कोई जवाब नहीं दे रहे थे।
विपक्षीगण के इस सेवा में कमी के कारण परिवादी को एवं उसके परिवार को अपने मकान के सुख से वंचित रखा जा रहा है तथा परिवादी को किराये के मकान में रहने के लिए विवश किया जा रहा है, जिस कारण से परिवादी को वर्ष 2008 से आज तक अपने परिवार को किराये के मकान में रखना पड़ रहा है, जिस कारण से लगभग 1,80,000/- रू0 प्रति वर्ष नुकसान हो रहा है, जो लगभग 10,80,000/- रू0 का नुकसान मात्र किराये के कारण हो गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त परिवादी के द्वारा बैंक का ब्याज बिना किसी कारण के ही भरना पड़ रहा है क्योंकि विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा अभी तक कोई फ्लैट उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है। उक्त राशि अभी तक लगभग 7,00,000/- रू0 हो चुकी है।
परिवादी के द्वारा विपक्षीगणों के बहकावे में आकर अच्छे सोसायटी में रहने हेतु गाजियाबाद में फ्लैट बुक कराया गया था, जो विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा परिवादी को वर्ष 2008 तक मिल जाना था, परन्तु उसके बाद स्वयं विपक्षीगणों के द्वारा ही उक्त योजना को शुरू नहीं किया गया तथा बाद में उसको लखनऊ में फ्लैट देने का वायदा किया गया, परन्तु उसके बाद आज तक उसको कोई फ्लैट नहीं दिया गया। यदि परिवादी के द्वारा वर्ष 2005 में किसी अन्य बिल्डर अथवा किसी अन्य सरकारी योजना में निवेश किया गया होता तो उसको गाजियाबाद में ही दो साल के अन्दर ही उससे कम कीमत में ही फ्लैट मिल जाता जो आज लगभग 45 लाख का होता एवं परिवादी के द्वारा अपने परिवार को इस प्रकार अपने साथ-साथ लेकर नहीं घूमना पड़ता और अब परिवादी कहीं और फ्लैट लेता हो वह लगभग 25,00,000/- रू0 का पड़ेगा।
तदनुार परिवादी ने यह परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया, जिसमें उसने निम्नलिखित अनुतोष चाहा है :-
क. विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाए कि वे परिवादी को उसके सहारा सिटी होम, लखनऊ के फ्लैट सं0-सी-19/402, टाइप-2 कुल क्षेत्रफल 83.30 वर्गमीटर का कब्जा अविलम्ब दें तथा उसकी रजिस्ट्री परिवादी के हक में करने का आदेश विपक्षीगण को दिया जाये।
ख. यदि उक्त फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना सम्भव न हो तो परिवादी को लखनऊ अथवा गाजियाबाद स्थित किसी अन्य पूर्ण विकसित योजना में उतने क्षेत्रफल के फ्लैट का कब्जा परिवादी को देने तथा उसकी रजिस्ट्री परिवादी के हक में करने का आदेश विपक्षीगण को दिया जाये। यदि किसी प्रकार से भी फ्लैट देना सम्भव न हो तो परिवादी के द्वारा जमा राशि पर वर्ष 2005 से 24 प्रतिशत चक्रवर्ती ब्याज के साथ अन्य क्षतिपूर्ति के साथ दिलाये जाने का आदेश दिया जाये।
ग. विपक्षीगण द्वारा की गयी इस सेवा में कमी के कारण परिवादी को अत्यन्त मानसिक एवं आर्थिक परेशानी हुई है, जिसका आंकलन करना असम्भव है, परन्तु विपक्षीगण द्वारा परिवादी को 10,00,000/- रू0 दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित होगा। अत: परिवादी को विपक्षीगण से 10,00,000/- रू0 मानसिक एवं आर्थिक क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए एवं किराये के कारण हई क्षति लगभग 10,80,000/- रू0 तथा परिवादी के द्वारा बिना किसी कारण से ही बैंक को राशि लगभग 7,00,000/- रू0 अदा करने के साथ कुल 27,80,000/- रू0 का भुगतान परिवादी को वाद प्रस्तुत करने की तिथि से वास्तविक भुगतान करने की तिथि तक 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से भुगतान दिलाये जाने की कृपा की जाये।
घ. वाद व्यय एवं भागदौड़ के कारण हुए खर्चों के फलस्वरूप विपक्षीगण से 1,00,000/- रू0 दिलाये जाने का आदेश देने की कृपा की जाये।
ड. अन्य कोई अनुतोष जो न्यायालय परिवादी के हक में उचित समझते हों दिलाये जाने का आदेश देने की कृपा की जाये।
विपक्षीगण द्वारा अपना लिखित कथन प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा कि अभिलेखों के विपरीत परिवाद के तथ्यों से इन्कार है।
आदेश पत्र दिनांकित 14-05-2015 से स्पष्ट हो रहा है कि विपक्षीगण की ओर से श्री अतुल कीर्ति उनके विद्वान अधिवक्ता दिनांक 14-05-2015 को उपस्थित हुए थे, जिन्होंने अपना वकालतनामा भी प्रस्तुत किया। दिनांक 17-06-2015 के आदेश पत्र के अनुसार विपक्षीगण ने लिखित कथन प्रस्तुत नहीं किया। आदेश पत्र दिनांकित 16-11-2015 पर दिनांक 01-02-2016 को अंकित की गयी कार्यालय टिप्पणी के अनुसार विपक्षी का लिखित तर्क बॉक्स द्वारा प्राप्त हुआ। आदेश दिनांक 27-05-2019 द्वारा यह लिखा गया, '' अधिवक्ता विपक्षी द्वारा लिखित तर्क दाखिल किया गया, पत्रावली में सम्मिलित किया जाए ''।
हमने लिखित कथन का अवलोकन किया, जो दिनांक 01-02-2016 को प्रस्तुत किया गया। स्पष्ट है कि यह लिखित कथन अत्यधिक विलम्ब से प्रस्तुत किया गया और इस सम्बन्ध में अधिनियम के स्पष्ट प्राविधानों के विपरीत जाकर न्यायालय लिखित कथन को पत्रावली में सम्मिलित नहीं कर सकती है और इस सम्बन्ध में निम्नलिखित न्यायिक दृष्टान्त अत्यधिक महत्वपूर्ण हैं :-
A Constitutional Bench (5 JJ) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the Case of New India Assurance Complainant Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, Civil Appeal no.10941-10942 of 2013 along with other many related Civil Appeals ( judgment 04.03.2020) held ;
"The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act").
The first question referred is as to whether Section 13(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days,should be read as mandatory or directory ; i.e., whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days.
The second question which is referred is as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.
The first question was referred by a two Judges bench of this Court vide an order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No (s) 10831084 of 2016, M/S Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Grand Venezia Buyers Association ( Reg), the relevant portion of which is as under :
"there is an apparent conflict between the decision of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited vs Corporation Bank [(2002)6 SCC 33], Kailash vs Nankhu [(2005)4 SCC 480] , Salem advocate Bar Association VS Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] on the one hand and J J Merchan &Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635)] and NIA Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage [ 2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as the power of the courts to extend time for filing of Written Statement/reply to a complaint is concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decision take the view that the relevant provisions including those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are directory in nature and the Courts concerned have the power to extend time for filing the written statement. The second line of decisions which are also of coordinate Benches however takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time for filing a reply there is no such power. Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgement. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five - Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two - Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three - Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate benches That comprising three Judges a reference to 3 Judges may not suffice"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41 of the judgement has held " To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that The District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complainant beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act ; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complainant by the opposite party and not mere receipt of the notice of the complainant. "
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 40 of the judgment has held ".............. we may, however, clarified that the objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise permitted to be raised at any point later on defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy Redressal of consumer disputes."
[Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 has also the same time limit to file written statement. It is quoted hereinbelow ;
38. Procedure on admission of complaint -(1) the District Commission shall , on admission of a complaint, or in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of the agreement by mediation proceed with such complaint.
(2) were the complainant relates to any goods, the discussion That shall -
(a) referral copy of the admitted complaint, within 21 days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by it ; ] According to section 49 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019, the provisions relating to complainants under section 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaint by the State Commission.
So in this case the written statement has been filed beyond the prescribed period as mentioned in section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per the act and as per the judgment of the only Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) this written statement is not liable to be taken on record so it will be not the part of the record.
इस प्रकार यह लिखित कथन पत्रावली पर रखे जाने योग्य नहीं है और इसे अस्वीकार किया जाता है।
ऐसी स्थिति में विपक्षीगण को केवल अपना तर्क प्रस्तुत करने का अधिकार होता है, जैसा कि मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अपने निम्नांकित निर्णय में कहा है :-
In the case of Arn Infrastructure India Limited Vs Hara Prasad Ghosh , SC (civil appeal diary no 31182/2023, Jt. dtd 04.09.2023) the facts are as follows :
A complaint under original jurisdiction was filed before the NCDRC seeking return of deposit from the Opposite Parties. In the said case, the Opposite Parties did not file their Written Version within the statutory timeline prescribed. While so, at the time of hearing final arguments, the Opposite Parties entered appearance through an advocate and sought an adjournment to make final arguments in the case.
The NCDRC rejected the said request on the ground that the Written Version was not filed within the statutory period. The NCDRC allowed the complaint by hearing only the Complainant on merits. An application was filed by the Opposite Parties to recall the aforesaid order. The said application was also dismissed by the NCDRC against which a civil appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is under discussion here.
The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Opposite Parties are entitled to make final arguments even when the Written Version was not filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Opposite Parties have a right to make final arguments even if the Written Version was not filed. The Apex Court observed that hearing only the Complainant on merits when the Opposite Parties intended to make submissions is violative of the principles of natural justice.
हमने परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री प्रतीक सक्सेना एवं विपक्षीगण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री ए0के0 श्रीवास्तव की विस्तार से बहस सुनी तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध समस्त अभिकथनों/अभिलेखों एवं साक्ष्यों का भलीभांति अवलोकन किया।
इस मामले में परिवादी ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि उसने दिनांक 31-03-2005 विपक्षीगण द्वारा गाजियाबाद में प्रचलित योजना ''सहारा सिटी होम्स'' के स्वर्ण/रजत योजना के तहत Gorgeous Type - C (STILT PLUS 9 FLOORS) 2 BEDR00M FLAT बुक कराया था तथा इसके सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी संख्या 3 के कार्यालय में रसीद संख्या 010154206694 के माध्यम से 83,750/- रूपये जमा किये गये थे। दिनांक 25-05-2005 को विपक्षीगण ने परिवादी को एक पत्र भेजा और उसके अनुसार कुल मूल्य का 10 प्रतिशत जमा करना था। इसके बाद परिवादी ने 2007 तक विभिन्न रसीदों के माध्यम से विपक्षीगण के पास 3,31,175/- रू0 जमा किया, लेकिन उसे फ्लैट के बारे में कोई सूचना नहीं दी गयी।
विपक्षीगण ने दिनांक 24-06-2008 को परिवादी को सूचित किया कि उसे सहारा सिटी होम, लखनऊ में फ्लैट सं0-सी-19/402, टाइप-2 का चौथे तल पर आवंटित कर दिया गया है, जिसका कुल मूल्य 17,38,594/- रू0 है और क्षेत्रफल 83.30 वर्गमीटर है। दिनांक 23-09-2008 को इस फ्लैट का आवंटन पत्र भी निर्गत किया गया। विपक्षीगण ने यह आश्वासन दिया कि फ्लैट का अध्यासन उसे सितम्बर, 2011 तक मिल जायेगा। परिवादी ने दिनांक 20-05-2009 को को एच0डी0एफ0सी0 बैंक से ऋण लिया और विपक्षीगण को नियमित रूप से भुगतान करता रहा। उसे मालूम हुआ कि परियोजना का कार्य अत्यधिक धीमी गति से चल रहा है। उसने विपक्षीगण को कई ई-मेल भी भेजे। परिवादी दिनांक 22-02-2011 को स्थल निरीक्षण के लिए गया तब उसे मालूम हुआ कि वहॉं पर मात्र प्रथम तल का स्लेब पड़ रहा था। वहॉं पर इंजीनियरों ने कुछ भी बताने में असमर्थता व्यक्त की कि फ्लैट कब तक तैयार हो जायेगा।
जब विपक्षीगण ने परिवादी के ई-मेल का कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया तब उसने मार्च, 2011 से बैंक को विपक्षीगण को भुगतान करने से रोग दिया, किन्तु तब तक परिवादी कुल 17,38,594/- रू0 के भुगतान के सापेक्ष 15,50,000/- रू0 अदा कर चुका था। वह विपक्षीगण को सन् 2014 तक ई-मेल भेजता रहा, किन्तु कोई उत्तर उसे नहीं दिया गया। विपक्षीगण ने उसे एक पत्र दिनांक 21-05-2014 को भेजा, जिसमें उससे कुछ और समय देने की मांग की गयी। इसी दौरान् विपक्षी सं0-2 को एक अन्य मामले में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने जेल में निरूद्ध कर दिया।
उभय पक्ष के साक्ष्यों को देखने के पूर्व यह देखना भी समीचीन है कि उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम का क्या उद्देश्य है और इसे किन उद्देश्यों के लिए पारित किया गया है ?
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 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 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 the consumer protection act is in addition to other act and not in derogation of any other act.
Now in this case it is clear that the complainant has deposited an amount of ₹ 83,750/- on 31st March 2005 . So this is the date when he applied for a flat and deposited the said amount. Thereafter when he received a demand notice from the opposite party for depositing 10% of the cost of the flat on 25.05.2005 , thereafter he deposited ₹ 331,175/- till 2007 . So it is clear that for the first time the complainant deposited ₹ 83,750/- on 31 March 2005. Thereafter till two third seven he has deposited ₹ 331,175/- with the opposite party. Thereafter he was offered and allotted a flat at Lucknow and an allotment letter has been issued regarding this flat in Lucknow on 23.09.2008 . By this about more than three years have passed from the first deposition of the amount by the complainant. By suspect is can the period of delivery of giving possession be increased. We have seen the judgement of the only Supreme Court in this regard where it has been said that if no time. Has been mentioned in the allotment letter or in the Builder Buyer Agreement, a reasonable period shall be reckoned which is three years.
यदि किसी बिल्डर द्वारा भवन या भूखण्ड का अध्यासन देने के लिए एग्रीमेण्ट में कोई समय सीमा निश्चित नहीं की गयी है तब वहॉं भी अध्यासन के लिए एक निश्चित समय की व्यवस्था की गयी है, जैसी कि मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अपने निम्न निर्णय में व्यवस्था दी है, जिसके अन्तर्गत ऐसे मामलों में उचित और तार्किक समय 03 वर्ष का है :-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal number (S) 3533-3534 of 2017, M/S Fortune infrastructure (NOW known as M/S Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. Vs Trevor D'Lima & Ors., Judgment 12.03.2018 has held:
"Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ?"
परिवाद पत्र के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि परिवादी ने कुल मूल्य 17,38,594/- रू0 के सापेक्ष कुल 15,50,000/- रू0 की धनराशि जमा की है और उसे आज तक फ्लैट का कब्जा नहीं मिला। हम इस मामले में प्रारम्भ होने की तिथि 01-01-2008 से लेते हैं, जहॉं से 03 वर्ष की अवधि की गणना करने पर वह 31-12-2011 आती है। इसका तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि सन्दर्भित फ्लैट का अध्यासन दिनांक 31-12-2011 तक दिया जाना था किन्तु ऐसा करने में विपक्षी असफल रहे। ऐसी स्थिति में किस धनराशि, किस ब्याज और कौन-कौन से अन्य अनुतोष को परिवादी पाने का अधिकारी है, इस सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निम्न निर्णय को देखना समीचीन होगा :- .
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh In the Supreme Court of India Name of the Case Ghaziabad Development Authority v.
Balbir Singh Citation (2004) 4 SCC 65 Year of the Case 2004 Petitioner Ghaziabad Development Authority Respondent Balbir Singh The case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh is a landmark decision that laid down certain judicial standards regarding the grounds on which compensation may be awarded, particularly, in matters of allotment of flats/plots by land development authorities. Compensation under consumer protection laws is required to recompense for loss or injury suffered by consumers, and therefore, the quantum of compensation to be awarded would necessarily have to be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. This decision set an established precedent on the issue of compensation to be awarded in consumer disputes, and its principles have been relied upon in numerous subsequent cases.
Introduction The consumer protection laws establish a redressal mechanism whereby consumers can claim monetary reliefs for defective goods, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. Sections 14 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 empower the District, State, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to "to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party". Such monetary reliefs i.e., compensation awarded would have to be based on the facts and circumstances of each case, since the loss and injury suffered would vary. Given the absence of a straight-jacket formula for the determination of the amount of compensation to be awarded in each case, it follows that there can be no uniformity in the award of compensation.
It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair, and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant can establish his charge.[1] These 'established judicial standards' have been laid down in a plethora of cases. The case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh[2] is a landmark decision that discussed the grounds on which compensation may be awarded, particularly, in matters of allotment of flats/plots by land development authorities. It set an established precedent on the issue of compensation to be awarded in consumer disputes, and its principles have been relied upon in numerous subsequent cases.
Background and Facts of the Case The present case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh arose out of an appeal directed against the judgment and award passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) awarding an interest @ 18% per annum. The Commission was considering a bunch of matters, the lead being the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar, where it held that in cases of deficiency of service by development authorities, the rate of interest awarded must be 18% per annum. Following this, the Commission disposed of subsequent matters by its preceding award. Numerous appeals were filed before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Commission in various cases, primarily against its award of 18% interest.
Since the Supreme Court was considering a wide number of matters relating to allotment of land by development authorities, the facts of each case vary. In some cases, the scheme had gotten canceled after the payment of monies and allotment of flats/plots. Delivery of possession of the flats was therefore refused to the allottees. In some cases, either possession was offered at an increased rate at a much later date possession or was offered but not taken by the party. Possession was not delivered in some cases despite payment of monies and no refusal to deliver possession. In some cases, the construction was of sub-standard quality or it was incomplete, or the authority demanded extra amounts from the party which was paid only by some. In some cases, allotments were made and possession offered of flats/land which was encumbered or occupied by some other party.
The appeal in the Supreme Court was filed due to the Commission granting interest at the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the type of case or amount of delay and without even going into the facts of the case. Complainants had asked for the refund of amounts wrongly collected and in other cases, asked for a refund of the amounts paid.
Issues Involved Whether the grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in all cases is justifiable?
Related Provisions Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Related Cases The Supreme Court relied upon the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta[3] which firstly widened the scope of "service" defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to include the housing construction or building activities carried on by private or statutory bodies.
The Court relied upon the English case Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir[4] which gave a wide connotation to the word compensation, holding that "Compensation has not been defined in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means, 'compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense;'. In a 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."
Judgment 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.
Awarding of Compensation in the Event of Deficiency in Service Rendered 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[5] and Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Darsh Kumar[6], 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.
Conclusion This landmark decision laid down rudimentary principles and set judicial standards concerning the awarding of compensation and the determination of the quantum of compensation to be awarded. It struck down the mechanical application of a fixed rate of interest at 18% per annum by the National Commission in numerous cases, asserting that there can be no hard and fast rule.
The principles enunciated go a long way in ensuring that consumers are compensated appropriately and proportionally for the loss and injury suffered. This decision has further strengthened the consumer protection laws by bringing clarity to how the consumer is required to award compensation.
References [1] Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. & Anr. v. Shakuntla Devi, (2017) 2 SCC 301 [2] (2004) 5 SCC 65 [3] (1994) 1 SCC 243 [4] (1878) 3 AC 430 [5] (2005) 9 SCC 430 [6] (2005) 9 SCC 449 Regarding delay of possession the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the following case law, "In Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 299 SC Judgment Date : Mar/2019[Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No(S). 1795 of 2017], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held regarding delay in giving possession.
"This appeal arises from the judgment dated 21 November 2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1. A Buyer's Agreement dated 2 July 2007 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent paid an amount of Rs 39,29,280 in 2006 in terms of a letter of allotment dated 20 September 2006. The agreement between the parties envisaged that the appellant would hand over possession of a Row House to the respondent by 31 December 2008 with a grace period of a further six months ending on 30 June 2009.
The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 in 2011 1 "NCDRC" "SCDRC" 2 praying for possession of the Row House and in the alternative for the refund of the amount paid to the developer together with interest at 12% per annum. Compensation of Rs 20 lakhs was also claimed. The SCDRC allowed the complaint by directing the appellant to refund the moneys paid by the respondent together with interest at 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The NCDRC has modified this order by reducing the compensation from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs 2 lakhs. Mr. Ravinder Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the primary relief which was sought in the consumer complaint was for delivery of possession. According to the appellant, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016, which was intimated to the respondent on 11 April 2016.
Moreover, before the SCDRC, in its written submissions, the appellant had offered possession of the Row House to the respondent. It has also been stated that in a complaint which was filed by an association representing the allottees of 161 Row houses, a settlement was arrived on 11 September 2018 before the NCDRC specifying the date on which possession would be handed over together with interest at 6% per annum instead of 4% as mentioned in the Buyers' Agreement. It was urged that the developer having made a substantial investment in terms of the agreement, a direction for refund is not warranted. It has also been urged that the SCDRC in the course of its decision erroneously observed that the developer was unable to fulfill its obligation to complete the construction within the agreed period and it was not certain when the Row house would be handed over. It was urged that this observation by the SCDRC is contrary to the record since before it, a specific offer of possession was made.
It has been urged on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Supriya Bose, learned senior counsel that a consumer complaint was filed in the year 2011. At that stage, the appellant was bonafide ready and willing to accept possession. However, nearly seven years have elapsed after the extended date for the delivery of possession which expired on 30 June 2009. In spite of this, no offer of possession was forthcoming. Learned senior counsel submitted that the letter dated 22 March 2016 of the developer was conditional and despite the subsequent letter dated 11 April 2016, no formal offer of possession was ever made by the appellant. Moreover, it was urged that the interest awarded by the NCDRC at the rate of 12% is just having regard to the economic loss and hardship suffered by the respondent. While considering the rival submissions, we must at the outset advert to the following clause which was contained in the Buyer's Agreement:
"Unless prevented by circumstances beyond the control of the company and subject to Force Majeure, KWIC shall ensure to complete the said unit in all respect within 31st December 2008 only for the Cluster D. Further there will be a grace period of 6 months (up to 30th June, 2009) from the date of completion. In case the possession is not transferred after expiry of the said grace period, KWIC will be liable to pay prevailing 4 saving Bank interest of the State Bank of India for each month of delay on the money given by the allottee as compensation but no compensation will be paid on account of force majeure reasons." It is the above clause which is pressed in aid by the developer. Under the aforesaid clause, any delay beyond 30 June 2009 would result in the developer being required to pay interest at the prevailing savings bank interest of the State Bank of India.
Interestingly, where the buyer is in default, the agreement stipulates that interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of default until the date of payment would be charged for a period of two months, failing which the allotment would be cancelled by deducting 5% of the entire value of the property. The agreement was evidently one sided. For a default on the part of the buyer, interest at the rate of 18% was liable to be charged. However, a default on the part of the developer in handing over possession would make him liable to pay interest only at the savings bank rate prescribed by the SBI. There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer that the agreement was one sided.
The clause which has been extracted in the earlier part of this order will not preclude the right and remedy available to the buyer to claim reasonable interest or, as the case may be, compensation. The essential aspect of the case which is required to be analysed is whether the buyer was entitled to seek a refund or was estopped from doing so, having claimed compensation as the primary relief in the consumer complaint.
The Buyer's Agreement is dated 2 July 2007. In terms of the agreement, the date for handing over possession was 31 December 2008, with a grace period of six months. Even in 2011, when the buyer filed a consumer complaint, he was ready and willing to accept possession. It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period.
A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the order of the NCDRC by directing that the appellant shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the respondent instead and in place of 12% as directed by the NCDRC. Save and except for the above modification, we affirm the directions of the NCDRC.
The amount outstanding in terms of the directions of this Court shall be released out of the moneys which have been deposited by the appellant. The balance, if any, that remains shall be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
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 a latest case, on Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24059/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-09-2022 in RP No. 1187/2022 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURESH CHAND GARG Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.202401/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date: 05-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
Held :
"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the order passed by the Consumer Commission was reasonable and there was no reason of filing appeal/revision against the substantive order passed on the consumer complaint by the District Consumer Commission dated 06.09.2019. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction, to sum up the litigation which is pending for a long time, that let the order of the District Consumer Commission dated 06.09.2019 shall be complied with and the respondent be refunded the entire deposit 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."
अत: मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि यदि 60 दिन के अन्दर धनराशि अदा की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 12 प्रतिशत होगी अन्यथा ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत होगी, जो वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
ब्याज दर के सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अशोक इन्वेस्टमेण्ट कं0 बनाम मै0 यूनाइटेड टावर्स इण्डिया (प्रा.) लि0 के मामले में कहा है कि जब आवंटी किसी धनरशि को देने में असफल होता है तब भवन निर्माता उससे विलम्ब शुल्क के रूप में 18 प्रतिशत ब्याज लेता है। अत: ऐसी स्थिति में जहॉं भवन निर्माता डिफाल्टर होगा, वहॉं पर उसे भी आवंटी को उसके द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज देना होगा।
`Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no 4913/2015 , M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. Vs M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD. has held, "This appeal by the Consumer under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861 has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2, (NCDRC), Delhi in Original Petition No.377 of 2000 between M/s. Ashoka Investment Company Vs. M/s. United Towers India (Pvt.) Ltd. By the said order, the NCDRC directed the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.4,95,000/(four lakhs and ninety five thousand) being total sale consideration to the appellant with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of refund/compliance.
The admitted facts are that, the appellant on 12.05.1980 applied for purchase of two flats bearing Nos.501 and 502 on the 5th Floor, 1st Block, Krishna Apartments, Bangalore for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,95,000/(four lakhs and ninety five thousand). Along with the application, the appellant paid Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh) each for the two flats by way of two DemandDrafts.
An agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 17.05.1980. As per para 3 of the agreement, possession was to be delivered within a period of 1821 months under normal conditions subject, however, to the availability of cement, steel and other building materials, electrical or power connections, drainage connection and subject to and including any Act of God, drought, flood or any other natural calamity and/or war restrictions by the Government, Municipal Corporation or any other public authorities or any other acts beyond the control of the builders.
Under paragraph 6 of the agreement, it is provided that if there was any default in payment of installments, the builder would be at liberty to insist for payment of the amount due together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment on the defaulted amount.
The entire amount of Rs.4,95,000/ (four lakhs and ninety five thousand) has since been paid by the appellant to the respondent. A dispute arose sometimes in 1991 when the respondent raised demand of Rs.1,56,046/(one lakh fifty six thousand and forty six) with respect to one apartment and Rs.1,62,202/(one lakh sixty two thousand and two hundred two) for the other apartment. These demands were raised vide bill dated 15.12.1991. These demands were objected to by the appellant and a request was made to hand over the possession of the two flats.
Apparently, possession was not given and, thereafter, it appears that in January, 1999, the appellant visited the apartments only to find that both the apartment Nos.501 and 502 had been transferred by the respondent in favour of third parties. It was thereupon that the appellant made enquiries and ame to know that the respondent had cancelled the allotment on 17.01.1995 and, thereafter, transferred it to the third parties.
After giving due notice, the appellant approached the NCDRC by way of a complaint praying for following reliefs:
"(a) To direct the Opposite Party to forthwith hand over to the Complainant vacant and peaceful possession of the flats allotted to it being Flats No.501 and 502, Krishna Apartments, Corporation No.13, Ali Asker Road, in Corporation Division No.59, Bangalore and to further pay a sum of Rs.22,50,000/ towards delayed delivery till the date of the application together with damages in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ as specified in para 22 of the application:
In the alternative to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.48,27,000/ as detailed in Paras 21 and 22 above, with pendente lite and further interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Costs of and incidental to these proceedings be provided for, and Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed."
The respondent contested the complaint on technical grounds as also on merit. According to the respondent, the appellant was not a consumer and further that the cancellation had taken place after several opportunities and due notice. The appellant had disputed receiving of any notice.
The NCDRC by the impugned order held that the appellant was a consumer as the amendment in the 1986 Act has been brought in 2003 whereby a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose was not to be treated as a consumer within the meaning of the definition of consumer provided under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the 1986 Act. Further, the NCDRC also found fault on the part of both the parties. The appellant not approaching the Commission with clean hands, with much delay and further the respondent conducting himself in a high handed and arbitrary manner. It accordingly disposed of the complaint by directing the respondents to refund the amount along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of refund/compliance.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, we enquired from the respondents, as to whether, the amount as awarded by the NCDRC in the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 has been paid to the appellant or not. We were informed that amount has not been paid so far. No justification has come forward as to why the awarded amount was not tendered to the appellant. The appellant has pressed for the entire complaint being allowed as per the relief claimed therein. On the other hand, the respondent has sought to justify the order of NCDRC. However, there is no appeal by the respondent. The appellant has also pressed vehemently that respondent should be called upon to produce the sale deeds of the two flats in question, transferred in favour of the third parties and that the said amount ought to be paid to the appellant along with other claims, the respondent has unjustly enriched itself by the aforesaid conduct. On the other hand, this request has been resisted by the respondents.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the NCDRC regarding the conduct of both the parties, however, we feel that in the fitness of things and in the interest of both the parties considering the nature of agreement made and also their conduct that the order of the NCDRC requires to be modified. The rate of interest awarded is only 9%. Once, we find that under the agreement, in the event of default, the appellant's liability to pay interest on the defaulted amount could go up to 18%, it would be just and proper in the facts of the present case that 18% interest be awarded on the refund amount."
अत: उपरोक्त मामले में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने 18 प्रतिशत का ब्याज परिवादी को उसके द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर दिलाया है। इससे यह स्पष्ट होता है कि बलबीर सिंह के निर्णय से लेकर इस निर्णय और मेरठ विकास प्राधिकरण के निर्णय तक तथ्यों और परिस्थितियों के अनुसार ब्याज की दर निश्चित की जाती है।
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.
सभी तथ्यों और मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय तथा मा0 राष्ट्रीय आयोग के निर्णयों को देखने के उपरान्त हम इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि परिवादी का परिवाद निम्नलिखित अनुतोष के लिए विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध संयुक्त एवं पृथक-पृथक रूप से आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किए जाने योग्य है :-
1. परिवादी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से सहारा सिटी होम, लखनऊ के फ्लैट सं0-सी-19/402, टाइप-2 कुल क्षेत्रफल 83.30 वर्गमीटर का अध्यासन और बैनामा पंजीकृत कराने के साथ ही साथ अग्निशमन विभाग, सिविल एविएशन विभाग, प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण विभाग आदि के अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र की प्रतियों के साथ-साथ कम्प्लीशन सर्टिफिकेट और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट की प्रतियों के साथ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है। यदि विपक्षीगण ऐसा करने में असमर्थ रहते हैं तब परिवादी इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के पश्चात् से विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से 50,000/- रू0 प्रतिमाह तब तक प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा जब तक कि इस आदेश का अनुपालन न हो जाये।
विकल्पत:
यदि उक्त फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना सम्भव न हो तब परिवादी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से उनकी लखनऊ या गाजियाबाद स्थित किसी अन्य पूर्ण विकसित योजना में समान क्षेत्रफल के फ्लैट का कब्जा इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अग्निशमन विभाग, सिविल एविएशन विभाग, प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण विभाग आदि के अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र की प्रतियों के साथ-साथ कम्प्लीशन सर्टिफिकेट और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट की प्रतियों के साथ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा।
विकल्पत:
यदि इस प्रकार से भी फ्लैट का कब्जा देना सम्भव न हो तब परिवादी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से, अपने द्वारा जमा की गयी सम्पूर्ण धनराशि, दिनांक 01-10-2011 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर प्राप्त करने का अधिकरी होगा और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 1-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
2. परिवादी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से मानसिक यन्त्रणा, विक्षोभ व अवसाद के मद में 10.00 लाख रू0 दिनांक 01-10-2011 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 1-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
3. परिवादी, विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से माननीय राष्ट्रीय आयोग के निर्णय (उपरलिखित) के परिप्रेक्ष्य में दिनांक 01-10-2011 से प्रतिमाह किराये के रूप में 15,000/- रू0 प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा, जो इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा करने पर ब्याज रहित होगा, लेकिन यदि भुगतान इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर नहीं किया गया, तब इस सम्पूर्ण धनराशि पर दिनांक 01-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज भी देय होगा।
4. परिवादी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से अपने द्वारा बैंक को अदा की गयी धनराशि 07.00 लाख रू0 दिनांक 01-10-2011 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 1-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
5. परिवादी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से 01.00 लाख रू0 वाद व्यय के रूप में इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा। यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर नहीं किया जाता है तब इस धनराशि पर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-10-2011 से वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक साधारण ब्याज भी देय होगा।
आदेश वर्तमान परिवाद निम्न अनुतोष के लिए विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध संयुक्त एवं पृथक-पृथक रूप से आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है :-
1. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को सहारा सिटी होम, लखनऊ के फ्लैट सं0-सी-19/402, टाइप-2 कुल क्षेत्रफल 83.30 वर्गमीटर का अध्यासन और बैनामा पंजीकृत कराने के साथ ही साथ उसे अग्निशमन विभाग, सिविल एविएशन विभाग, प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण विभाग आदि के अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र की प्रतियों के साथ-साथ कम्प्लीशन सर्टिफिकेट और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट की प्रतियों के साथ प्रदान करें। यदि विपक्षीगण ऐसा करने में असमर्थ रहते हैं तब वे इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के पश्चात् से परिवादी को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से 50,000/- रू0 प्रतिमाह तब तक अदा करेंगे जब तक कि इस आदेश का अनुपालन न हो जाये।
विकल्पत:
यदि उक्त फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना सम्भव न हो तब विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे लखनऊ या गाजियाबाद स्थित किसी अपनी अन्य पूर्ण विकसित योजना में समान क्षेत्रफल के फ्लैट का कब्जा इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अग्निशमन विभाग, सिविल एविएशन विभाग, प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण विभाग आदि के अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र की प्रतियों के साथ-साथ कम्प्लीशन सर्टिफिकेट और आकूपेंसी सर्टिफिकेट की प्रतियों के साथ प्रदान करें।
विकल्पत:
यदि इस प्रकार से भी फ्लैट का कब्जा देना सम्भव न हो तब विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को उसके द्वारा जमा की गयी सम्पूर्ण धनराशि, दिनांक 01-10-2011 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर भुगतान करें और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 1-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
2. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को मानसिक यन्त्रणा, विक्षोभ व अवसाद के मद में 10.00 लाख रू0 दिनांक 01-10-2011 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर भुगतान करें और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 1-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
3. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को माननीय राष्ट्रीय आयोग के निर्णय (उपरलिखित) के परिप्रेक्ष्य में दिनांक 01-10-2011 से प्रतिमाह किराये के रूप में 15,000/- रू0 का भुगतान करें, जो इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा करने पर ब्याज रहित होगा, लेकिन यदि भुगतान इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर नहीं किया गया, तब इस सम्पूर्ण धनराशि पर दिनांक 01-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज भी देय होगा।
4. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को उसके द्वारा बैंक को अदा की गयी धनराशि 07.00 लाख रू0 दिनांक 01-10-2011 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर भुगतान करें और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 1-10-2011 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
5. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को 01.00 लाख रू0 वाद व्यय के रूप में इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर भुगतान करें। यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर नहीं किया जाता है तब इस धनराशि पर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-10-2011 से वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक साधारण ब्याज भी देय होगा।
यदि विपक्षीगण इस परिवाद के निर्णय का अनुपालन निर्णय के दिनांक से 30 दिन के अन्दर करने में असमर्थ रहते हैं तब परिवादी को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विपक्षीगण के व्यय पर इस न्यायालय के समक्ष निष्पादन वाद प्रस्तुत करे।
उभय पक्ष को इस निर्णय की प्रमाणित प्रति नियमानुसार उपलब्ध करायी जाय।
वैयक्तिक सहायक से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह इस निर्णय को आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।
(विकास सक्सेना) (राजेन्द्र सिंह) सदस्य सदस्य
निर्णय आज खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षरित, दिनांकित होकर उद्घोषित किया गया।
(विकास सक्सेना) (राजेन्द्र सिंह) सदस्य सदस्य दिनांक : 15-01-2024. प्रमोद कुमार, वैय0सहा0ग्रेड-1, कोर्ट नं.-2. [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER