State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurminder Singh vs Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers ... on 9 July, 2024
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Complaint No. : 07 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.01.2024
Date of Decision : 09.07.2024
Gurminder Singh S/o S. Surat Singh R/o House No. 71, Sector 1, Sanjay
Nagar, Jammu-180010
....Complainant
Versus
1. Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Private Limited., Corparate Office:- SCO
139-140, 1st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160008 through
its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/Authorised signatory.
2. Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Private Limited., India Trade Tower, 1st
Floor, Baddi Kurali Road, New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar,
Punjab through its Director/Managing Director/ Chairman/ Authorised
signatory.
3. Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Private Limited., Registered and
Corporate Office:- 10, Local Shopping Complex, Kalkarji, New Delhi- 110019
through its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/Authorised signatory.
4. Axis Bank Limited, SCO 350-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its
Branch Manager/Authorised signatory
....Opposite Parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3. None for opposite party no.4.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking registration of sale deed of the unit bearing no.TLC/VICTORIA- A/SEVENTEENTH/1701 purchased by him in the project of opposite parties no.1 to 3 named "The Lake" New Chandigarh, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, alongwith compensation for the period of delay etc. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase of the said flat, its total cost was fixed at Rs.85,26,618/- and as per clause 40 (a) of the allotment letter dated 15.03.2016, Annexure C-1, possession of the said unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months with extended period of 6 months but opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to do so. On the other hand, when possession of the 2 said unit was offered vide letter dated 20.10.2022, Annexure C-3, a statement of account was also accompanied by it, wherein it was found that the area of the said unit was increased by 90 square feet and the complainant was asked to make payment of Rs.16,31,053.88 ps., which also includes the differential amount towards increase in area. Over and above, the amount towards increase in area, delayed payment interest was also demanded to the tune of Rs.1,37,923.12 ps. It has been averred that in order to make payment towards the said unit, the complainant had availed housing loan to the tune of Rs.70 lacs from opposite party no.4, vide tripartite agreement dated 21.03.2016, Annexure C-2. It has been stated that during the period intervening, opposite parties no.1 to 3 agreed to settle the grievance of the complainant and executed settlement deed dated 23.03.2023, Annexure C-3A, whereby they waived of the said delayed payment interest and as such the complainant was asked to make remaining payment of Rs.14,93,282.88ps. The complainant after making the said payment of Rs.14,93,282.88ps. approached opposite parties no.1 to 3 to get executed the sale deed, yet, opposite parties no.1 to 3 issued letter dated 07.10.2023, Annexure C-3B demanding an amount of Rs.5,86,723/- on the ground that instead of Rs.22,17,777/- they had wrongly demanded an amount of Rs.16,31,053.88 ps. aforesaid. Though there was no justification with opposite parties no.1 to 3 to demand the said amount, yet, under compelling circumstances, the said amount of Rs.5,86,723/- was paid by the complainant under protest, vide letter dated 08.01.2024, Annexure C-4. However, thereafter, despite making number of requests to refund the said amount of Rs.5,86,723/- and also to execute sale deed in respect of the unit in question but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking following reliefs:-
"...(i). To execute the registered sale deed in favor of the complainant pertaining to unit по. TLC/Victoria- A/Seventeenth/1701 admeasuring 1670sq.ft/155.15sq.mt in Group Housing Project "The Lake" Tower Victoria A at New Chandigarh, District Mohali.
(ii). To refund an amount of Rs. 5,86,723/- received in excess along with interest @18% from 08.01.2024 till refund.
(iii). To pay interest @18 on deposited amount from the agreed date of possession 14.09.2019 till the date of execution of registered sale deed in favor of the complainant.
(iv). To pay interest @18% from the agreed date of possession i.e. 14.09.2019 till the date of issuance of completion certificate from the competent authority of the project ie. The Lake"
New Chandigarh, District Mohali.
(v). To provide the facilities as advertised through Brochure and advertisements.
(vi). To pay compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss, caused to the 3 complainant and deficiency in service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
(vii). To grant additional relief if any, as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
(viii). To pay cost of litigation of Rs, 1 lac to the complainant.........."
2. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to sale of the unit in question to the complainant; payments made by him as mentioned in the complaint; execution of allotment letter/agreement etc. took various objections/pleas as under:-
i. that the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands and has tried to mislead this Commission; ii. that this Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction; iii. that the complainant being investor did not fall within the definition of consumer;
iv. that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the allotment letter/agreement, this Commission is having no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and only an arbitrator can adjudicate the same;
v. that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of Directors/Managing Director/Chairman as parties to this complaint. vi. that because opposite parties no.1 to 3 vide letter dated 05.02.2024 have already asked the complainant to get the sale deed executed therefore this complaint is now infructuous;
vii. that as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, area and unit in question was tentative and subject to change upon approval of building plans and completion of construction of project;
viii. that as per clause 40 (a) of the allotment letter/agreement, it was clearly agreed to between the parties that the period of delivery of possession of the unit was subject to force majeure circumstances; ix. the possession of the unit in question was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 20.10.2022 after obtaining occupation certificate dated 15.10.2022, which has been taken over by him;
x. that thereafter because the complainant took up the issue of delayed interest therefore settlement was arrived at between the parties vide settlement deed dated 23.03.2023 whereby it was agreed by the complainant that he will not file any case against them and as such now he is barred from filing this complaint; xi. that as far as demand of Rs.5,86,723/- is concerned, opposite parties no.1 to 3 vide letter dated 07.10.2023, Annexure C-3B have informed the complainant that due to typographical error, instead of demanding remaining amount of Rs.22,17,777/- they had wrongly demanded an amount of Rs.16,31,053.88 ps. xii. that an amount of Rs.34,71,612.66ps. has been paid by the complainant from his pocket and an amount of Rs.55,22,918.34p.s. has been paid by opposite party no.4 i.e. total amount of Rs.89,94,531/- and since the area of the unit in 4 question was increased by 90 sq.feet for an amount of Rs.4,25,970/-, therefore the remaining amount was demanded from the complainant alongwith allied charges;
xiii. that opposite parties no.1 to 3 had paid total amount of Rs.38,86,451/- to opposite party no.4 under subvention scheme, in respect of the unit in question;
3. While denying the rest of the averments made in the complaint, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party no.4 in its written version stated that the grievance raised by the complainant qua non registration of sale deed has no relation with it. The complainant has not sought any relief against opposite party no.4. Loan amount of Rs.59,87,520/- stood disbursed by opposite party no.4 to opposite parties no.1 to 3 in respect of the unit in question. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint against opposite party no.4.
5. In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of the opposite parties no.1 to 3.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their case and the complainant filed written arguments.
7. On the date of arguments, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.4 and accordingly, we have heard the Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties no.1 to 3 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case including the written arguments filed by the complainant, very carefully.
8. First, we will deal with the objection taken to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of 'consumer', it may be stated here that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have failed to place on record any cogent and convincing documentary evidence in this regard, whereas, the onus was upon them to establish that the unit in question has been purchased by the complainant to indulge in 'purchase and sale of units' i.e. for earning profits, as was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but since they failed to discharge their onus, especially, when the complainant is still seeking registration of sale deed of the said unit, hence, we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Act, 2019. As such, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
9. Now coming to the objection raised regarding territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that Section 47 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides as under:-
".....47. (4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--5
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain...."
Bare perusal of the above said provisions of sub-sections (a) and
(b) of Section 47 (4) of the CPA 2019 abundantly make it very clear that a complaint may be filed at a place, where the opposite party(s) actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Sub-section (c) of Section 47 (4) of the said Act, further clarifies that the State Commission within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action, wholly or in part arises, shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint.
In the present case, following documents reveal that this Commission at Chandigarh is vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint:-
(i) Allotment Letter dated 15.03.2016, Annexure C-1 has been executed at Corporate Office of Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. at SCO No.139-140, 1st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160008;
(ii) Tripartite Agreement dated 21.03.2016, Annexure C-2 was also signed by the parties at Chandigarh;
(iii) As per clause 63 of the Allotment Letter dated 15.03.2016, Annexure C-1, it has been agreed between the parties that any matter arising out of the unit in question shall be entertained by the courts at Chandigarh/Delhi.
(iv) Even the settlement deed dated 23.03.2023, Annexure C-
3A was executed between the complainant and Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. at Chandigarh.
In this view of the matter, it is held that it has been proved on record that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were residing and carrying on their business from their Corporate Office, Chandigarh and were personally working for gain, from the said corporate office at Chandigarh and also the cause of action, arose to 6 the complainant, to file this complaint with this Commission. Objection taken in this regard, therefore stands rejected.
10. As far as objection taken with regard to Arbitration is concerned, it may be stated here that this issue has already been set at rest by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements/contracts between the buyer and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 and Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, also stood dismissed vide orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018 respectively. As such, objection taken in this regard also stands rejected.
11. It is not in dispute that in the year 2016, unit bearing no.TLC/VICTORIA-A/SEVENTEENTH/1701, measuring 1580 square feet was purchased by the complainant in the project in question, total price whereof was fixed at Rs.85,26,618/-. It is also an admitted fact that as per clause 40 (a) of the allotment letter dated 15.03.2016, Annexure C-1, possession of the said unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months with extended period of 6 months (total 42 months) i.e. latest by 14.09.2019, yet, it was not so done, and the same was admittedly delivered only on 23.03.2023 i.e. after a delay of about more than 3 ½ years of the committed date. It is coming out from the record that alongwith possession offer letter dated 20.10.2022, Annexure C-3, a statement of account was also accompanied by it, wherein it was found that the area of the said unit was increased by 90 square feet i.e. total 1670 square feet and the complainant was asked to make payment of Rs.16,31,053.88 ps., which also includes the differential amount towards increase in area, proportionately. Over and above, the amount towards increase in area, delayed payment interest was also demanded to the tune of Rs.1,37,923.12 ps. The said matter was settled between the parties, vide settlement deed dated 23.03.2023 and the said delayed interest was waived of, whereafter, admittedly, the complainant paid the remaining amount of Rs.14,93,282.88ps. However, thereafter, dispute arose between the parties, when despite execution of settlement deed, opposite parties no.1 to 3 vide letter dated 07.10.2023, Annexure C-3B, while violating the terms and conditions of the said settlement deed, demanded an amount of Rs.5,86,723/- on the ground that due to typographical error, instead of Rs.22,17,777/- they had wrongly demanded an amount of Rs.16,31,053.88 ps. aforesaid vide possession offer letter dated 20.10.2022, Annexure C-3. However, it is also an admitted fact that the said 7 amount of Rs.5,86,723/- stood paid by the complainant, under protest, vide letter dated 08.01.2024, Annexure C-4.
Under these circumstances, now the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant was liable to make payment of Rs.5,86,723/- or not? To answer this question we need to go into the details, as to what amount the complainant was liable to make in respect of the unit in question to opposite parties no.1 to 3 and at the same time, what amount stood already paid by him to them. Perusal of allotment letter dated 15.03.2016, Annexure C-1 reveals that total cost of the unit in question measuring 1580 square feet was fixed at Rs.85,26,618/- as under:-
Basic Sale Price 7094200.00
Additional Cost 1143278.00
Maintenance Security 55300.00
Government Levies 233840.00
Total 85,26,618.00
In the possession offer letter dated 20.10.2022, Annexure C-3, it has been fairly admitted by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that they have already received an amount of Rs.75,85,137.73ps. from the complainant out of Rs.85,26,618/- meaning thereby that by this date, only an amount of Rs.9,41,480.27 p.s. (Rs.85,26,618/- minus (-) Rs.75,85,137.73ps.) was pending to be paid by the complainant. However, thereafter, because area of the unit in question was increased to the extent of 90 square feet, its price was increased per square feet @4490/- i.e. additional amount of Rs.4,04,100/- alongwith allied charges, and as such, now the total sale consideration of the unit in question was fixed at Rs.89,94,531/-, as under:-
Description Earlier Increased Total
Net Basic Sale Price 7056174.00 404100.00 7460274.00
Covered car parking 198929.00 00 198929.00
Electrical equipment cost 94292.00 5400.00 99692.00
and firefighting equipment
cost
PLC-Water and Garden 449898.00 00 449898.00
Facing-2
PLC-15th Floor and above 224949.00 00 224949.00
IFMS 55300.00 3150 58450.00
EDC 233840.00 13320.00 247160.00
Club Membership 150000.00 00 150000.00
Power backup 59679.00 00 59679.00
Meter cost 45500.00 00 45500.00
Total 8994531.00
8
Thus, now as per the increased area alongwith allied charges, the complainant was liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.14,09,393.27ps. i.e. Rs.89,94,531/- minus (-) Rs.75,85,137.73ps. already paid. However, though opposite parties no.1 to 3 demanded an amount of Rs.16,31,053/- against Rs.14,09,393.27ps. after adding the delayed payment interest of Rs.1,37,923.12, yet, as stated above, the said interest was waived of, vide settlement deed dated 23.03.2023, Annexure C-3A and thus, the complainant was liable to make payment of Rs.14,09,393.27ps. only, which has admittedly been paid by him. In this manner, the total sale consideration of Rs.89,94,531/- stood paid by the complainant as detailed above.
12. Surprisingly, despite the fact that opposite parties no.1 to 3 vide settlement deed vide settlement deed dated 23.03.2023, Annexure C-3A had settled the matter with the complainant and possession of the unit in question was also delivered on 23.03.2023 i.e. after a delay of about more than 3 ½ years of the committed date, yet, thereafter, vide letter dated 07.10.2023, Annexure C-3B more amount of Rs.5,86,723/- was demanded from the complainant with the warning that in case the same is not paid within 15 days, they will levy interest on the said amount. It is the definite case of the complainant that though he was not liable to make the said payment, yet, under compelling circumstances, he paid the same vide cheque dated 08.01.2024 [(receipts dated 08.01.2024) (Annexures C-5 colly.)], under protest, vide letter dated 08.01.2024, Annexure C-4. It is significant to mention here that during pendency of this complaint and also during the course of arguments, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were having ample opportunities to prove as to how, they were entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,86,723/- from the complainant, over and above the amount of Rs.89,94,531/-, yet, they miserably failed to do so. On the other hand, in order to justify the said demand of Rs.5,86,723/-, counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 relied upon the statement of accounts dated 15.03.2024, Annexure OP-6, which shows that on 20.01.2020, a credit note of Rs.558781.90 alongwith GST stood issued in the record maintained by them and thereafter, a debit note of Rs.558781.90 alongwith GST stood again issued in their record. Thereafter, again credit note of Rs.5,86,721/- has been shown to be issued in the record maintained by them. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 have stated in their reply that this amount could not be taken into account because of typographical error in their accounts statement sent alongwith the letter of offer of possession. We are of the considered view that this statement of account is the internal document maintained by opposite parties no.1 to 3, which is not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence, to prove that any such amount of Rs.5,86,723/- was ever due towards the complainant. This statement of accounts is dated 15.03.2024 and there is nothing on record to prove that the same has been 9 maintained in the regular course of business. When we compare this statement of account dated 15.03.2024 with the account statement accompanied with the offer of possession letter dated 20.10.2022, Annexure OP-3, we did not find any reason to hold that the complainant was liable to make payment of Rs.5,86,723/- under any head, especially, when it has been very fairly admitted by opposite parties no.1 to 3 in their written statement, supported by their own account statement attached with the offer of possession letter to the effect that the total sale consideration of the unit in question was fixed at Rs.89,94,531/-. Thus, by mere placing on record this statement of accounts dated 15.03.2024, Annexure OP-6, showing a credit note of Rs.558781.90 alongwith GST totalling to Rs.5,86,723/-, in the internal account maintained by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in no way justifies their stand that the complainant was liable to make any such remaining payment in respect of the unit in question. It is very significant to mention here that in the first instance opposite parties no.1 to 3 have stated in their reply that this amount could not be taken into account because of typographical error in their accounts statement sent alongwith the letter of offer of possession, yet, during pendency of the complaint, they took a somersault and moved miscellaneous application bearing no.593 of 2024, wherein it was stated by them that infact the said amount of Rs.5,86,723/- stood paid by the company to opposite party no.4/Bank as Pre-EMI under subvention scheme for the period from September 2019 to 31.08.2020. If this is so the case of opposite parties no.1 to 3, then the complainant has no concern with it. In case, the company has allegedly paid an amount of Rs.5,86,723/- in excess to opposite party no.4, they should have sought refund of this amount from opposite party no.4 and not from the complainant. Thus by receiving the amount of Rs.5,86,723/- from the complainant, opposite parties no.1 to 3 have adopted unfair trade practice and as such, they are liable to refund the same, alongwith interest to the complainant.
13. Admittedly, as per clause 40 (a) of the allotment letter dated 15.03.2016, Annexure C-1, possession of the said unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months with extended period of 6 months i.e. latest by 14.09.2019 but opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to do so. On the other hand, possession of the unit in question was admittedly delivered to the complainant only on 23.03.2023 i.e. after a delay of about more than 3 ½ years of the committed date. Thus, in our considered opinion, by not offering and delivering possession of the unit in question by the promised date, opposite parties no.1 to 3 are deficient in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice, as they have failed to prove that they suffered any force majeure circumstances, as a result of which, possession could not be delivered by the promised date i.e. 14.09.2019..
10Under above circumstances, now, we will like to decide as to what amount of compensation should be granted to the complainant, for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the unit in question. On account of delay in actual delivery of possession of the unit to the complainant, he has definitely suffered mental agony, hardships and financial loss. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018 under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon'ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the units. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
"......8. Having regard to the above submission, we indicated to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the flat purchasers that it would be appropriate if the interest as ordered by NCDRC at 9% per annum is made payable over the period which was determined by the Order of the SCDRC. There is no objection by the flat purchasers to the aforesaid modification being made. Even otherwise, we are of the view that such a modification would be required in the interests of justice since it was the appellants who had questioned the Order of the SCDRC before the NCDRC.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, we confirm the direction of the NCDRC that the appellants shall pay interest @ 9 per cent per annum. However, the period over which interest shall be payable will be in conformity with the Order passed by the SCDRC...."
14. Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019, by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora's case (supra). In Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon'ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
"......Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to pay interest @9% w.e.f. 31.03.2014, i.e., the expected date of delivery of the possession, on the amount deposited by the respective Complainant till 02.09.2017, i.e., the date on which the possession of the Flat was offered by the Opposite Party Developer, within two months from today......."
15. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 11 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till possession is delivered. As such, in the present case also, the complainant deserves just and fair compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession to him by the opposite parties no.1 to 3. In our considered opinion, if we grant interest @9% p.a. to the complainant on the entire amount deposited by him, from the due date of possession onwards till delivery of possession thereof, that will meet the ends of justice.
16. As far as objection taken to the effect that the company has been wrongly impleaded through their Directors/Managing Director/Chairman, it may be stated here that the company being a juristic person has to be impleaded through its Senior Officers/Directors. In our considered opinion, the Officers like Directors Directors/Managing Director/Chairman are holding such important positions in the Company (a juristic person), where they are directly involved with the decision-making process and will be jointly and severally liable alongwith the Company, for all its acts done. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017. As such, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
17. As far as plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that the complainant was stopped from filing this complaint, in view of settlement deed dated 23.03.2023, Annexure C-3A, it may be stated here that since opposite parties no.1 to 3 have themselves violated the terms and conditions of the said settlement deed, as they themselves demanded an amount of Rs.5,86,723/-, from the complainant vide letter dated 07.10.2023, Annexure OP-5 and received the same vide cheque dated 08.01.2024, Annexure C-4 thereby violating the said settlement deed with impunity, as such, now they cannot seek any relief/immunity out of this settlement deed. As such, plea taken in this regard, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
18. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
i. To get register the sale deed, if not yet registered, in respect of the unit bearing no. TLC/VICTORIA-A/SEVENTEENTH/1701, measuring 1670 square feet in the said project, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of stamp duty charges from the complainant.
ii. To pay to the complainant, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. starting from 14.09.2019 till 22.03.2023, on the entire amount 12 deposited by him, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which thereafter the entire accumulated amount for the said period i.e. 14.09.2019 till 22.03.2023 shall carry penal interest @12% p.a., from the date of default (i.e. from 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order) till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the complainant.
iii. To refund the amount of Rs.5,86,723/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 08.01.2024 onwards within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which thereafter the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., from the date of default till this amount is paid to him.
iv. To pay to the complainant, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and also for deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
19. Complaint against opposite party no.4 stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
21. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith
22. File be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced.
09.07.2024 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg.