State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinay Dua vs M/S Omaxe Ltd. on 19 August, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014
Date of institution : 20.05.2014
Date of decision : 19.08.2016
1. Vinay Dua son of Sh. Ved Raj Dua, resident of X-14, RH-4,
Sector 9, CBD, Belapur, New Bombay.
2. Shashi Dua wife of Sh. Vinay Dua, resident of X-14, RH-4,
Sector 9, CBD, Belapur, New Bombay.
....Complainants
Versus
1. M/s OMAXE Ltd., Regd. Office 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s OMAXE Ltd., Regn. Office: Royal Residency, opposite
Sterling Resort, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana-142022, through its
Managing Director.
3. State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre,
Administrative Office, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate For opposite party Nos.1&2: Shri Bhupender Singh, Advocate For opposite party No.3 : Shri Aseem Gupta, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The complainants, Vinay Dua and Shashi Dua, have filed this complaint, under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 2
i) to deliver possession of the complete flat in all respects, on the receipt of the balance amount, OR to refund the sum of Rs.24,95,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit;
ii) to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them; and
iii) to pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation expenses.
They have averred, in their complaint, that in pursuance of the advertisement published in various newspapers by opposite party Nos.1 & 2, they booked one residential flat bearing No.702 in "Priceton-5 Tower" on 7th Floor, having super area of 167.224 square meters/1800 square feet, at "OMAXE ROYAL RESIDENCY, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as, "flat in Tower No.5"), for sale consideration of Rs.49,35,600/-. On 13.03.2008, they paid Rs.4,95,000/- to those opposite parties at the time of booking and agreement dated 15.07.2008, containing the terms and conditions of the allotment, was executed between them. Vide that agreement, these opposite parties agreed to deliver the fully furnished flat to them, within a period of 30 months from the date of the agreement. They were also told that the opposite parties would assist them in getting loan from their Banker- opposite party No.3, by executing Tripartite Agreement. Thereafter, such an agreement was executed and a loan of Rs.44,55,000/- was sanctioned in their favour by the Bank. The flat was kept as "primary security" by the Bank for securing the repayment of the loan. They Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 3 authorized and mandated the Bank to pay the loan amount directly to opposite party Nos.1 & 2, as per Clause 2 of the Tripartite Agreement. As per that agreement, mere demand from opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 was to be sufficient to effect the disbursement of the amount. Out of the said amount, only Rs.20,00,000/- was disbursed, as loan, directly to opposite party Nos.1 & 2 on 27.08.2008 towards payment of the flat, as demanded by those opposite parties. After the deposit of more than 50% of the price of the flat, they have been asking opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to give status of construction of the flat in Tower No.5 and to give the possession thereof at the earliest. When they visited the site on 27.08.2011, they were informed that Tower No.5 was not being constructed and they have been allotted flat No.702 in Tower No. Priceton-1. This location was changed by opposite party Nos.1 & 2, without their consent, in utter breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. When they visited the site, they found that even the construction of the said Tower had been withheld. They immediately sent e-mail dated 13.09.2011, intimating opposite party Nos.1 & 2 that the change of location of flat was not acceptable to them and requested for the exchange of the flat in Tower No.5 with one three-storeyed flat; which was going to be completed very shortly. The opposite parties neither allotted that flat, as requested by them, nor gave any reply to their e-mail. Thereafter, they were left with no other alternative, except to make a request to them for the refund of the amount, so deposited. On account of the breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement committed by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 in completing and executing the Sale Deed of flat in Tower No.5, opposite party No.3-Bank served notice Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 4 dated 05.04.2012 upon them for depositing the Title Deed and otherwise the loan would be recalled, with penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum; in addition to the interest rate applicable on the loan. That notice was issued in-spite of the fact that they had been depositing the instalments of loan regularly and had already paid Rs.20,28,302.74P to the Bank; which included Rs.10,86,390.74P, as principal amount and Rs.9,41,912/-, as interest as on 31.03.2014. When they made persistent demands and issued letters to opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to complete the construction and execute the Sale Deed in their favour for enabling them to comply with the notice dated 05.04.2012, served by the Bank, they were informed, vide letter dated 10.11.2012, that in case the entire balance amount is paid before 30.11.2012, the interest amounting to Rs.8,10,948/- shall be waived by them. On the receipt of that letter, they wrote letter dated 16.11.2012 to the Bank, requesting it to release the payment before 30.11.2012 to avail the waiver of interest on the delayed payments, but it informed them that the project had already been delayed for more than three years and, as such, it was unable to disburse the balance amount of the loan and asked them to obtain the exact date of possession of the flat from opposite party Nos.1 & 2. Thereafter, they wrote several letters and reminders to those opposite parties to intimate them the exact date of possession of the flat; so as to enable them to ask the Bank to release the balance payment, but they malafidely did not give any reply. Thereafter, instead of completing the flat and intimating them about the date of possession, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 served notice dated 11.03.2014, calling upon them to pay the sum of Rs.18,98,170/-, along with interest of Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 5 Rs.27,97,943/-, within 10 days and also mentioned therein that in case of their failure to pay that amount, the allotment shall stand cancelled and the entire earnest money and other amount shall be forfeited. Thereafter, they served legal notice dated 22.04.2014, through their counsel, upon those opposite parties to deliver the possession of fully furnished flat within 15 days, by receiving the balance amount, without interest and in case they were unable to deliver that possession, then to refund the amount already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In-spite of the service of that notice, they did not give any reply thereto. The cancellation letter, so served upon them, is illegal, ultra virus and against the terms and conditions of the agreement; as it were opposite party Nos.1 & 2, who failed to complete the flat and deliver the possession thereof to them and changed the location thereof, without their consent, in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. After the complaint was admitted, notices were sent to the opposite parties, who came present, through their counsel, for contesting the same. However, written reply was filed only by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and no such written reply was filed by opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.1 & 2, in their written reply, admitted that the flat in Tower No.5 was allotted to the complainants and the agreement, containing the terms and conditions, was executed between them. They also admitted that the location of the flat was changed from Tower No.5 to Tower No.1. They did not dispute that the amounts, as mentioned in the complaint, were paid by the complainants, either by themselves or Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 6 through opposite party No.3-Bank; from whom they obtained the loan. They denied the other allegations made in the complaint and averred that as per the agreed terms and conditions and in order to put the complainants in possession of the property, in dispute, the change was effected and the residential unit bearing No.702 in Tower No.1 was allotted. The possession of the flat was to be given to the complainants, in case they had adhered to the settled terms and conditions and they never adhered to the same. They did not pay all the dues and the only option with them was to cancel the allotment. While exercising that right, they cancelled the allotment, vide letter dated 25.04.2014, on account of the consistent default on the part of the complainants. They never received any such e-mail or letter from the complainants for disclosing the status of construction. The change of location was already in their knowledge and that fact further becomes clear from the demand letter; which was issued in the year 2009. The complainants never raised any issue regarding that change. As the complainants were not showing their willingness to make the payment of the remaining amount, so nothing could be done and there is no question of the refund of the amount paid by them. The refund can be processed, only in accordance with terms and conditions of the contract and not in routine. The possession of the flat could have been delivered to the complainants, only in case they had made the payment of instalments in time. There was no such deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The complainants did not follow the Payment Plan, opted by them at the time of entering into the agreement; whereas the timely payment of instalments was essence of the agreement. Once they had not followed Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 7 that Payment Plan, it does not lie in their mouth to allege any deficiency against them. Moreover, they are not "consumers", within the definition of the Act; as they made investment in the project. They have no cause of action to file the complaint. They prayed for the dismissal thereof, with costs.
3. The complainants, in support of the allegations made in the complaint, proved on record their affidavits, Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26. For rebutting that evidence, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 proved on record the affidavit of their Authorized Representative, Dheeraj Sharma, Ex.OP-A and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.
4. We have carefully gone through the averments of both the sides, the evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have heard learned counsel on their behalf.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that all the allegations made in the complaint stand proved from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainants. It stands proved therefrom that they had paid the total amount, as was payable by them under the agreement, and the balance amount was to be disbursed to opposite party Nos.1 & 2, on behalf of the complainants, by opposite party No.3-Bank on the basis of the Tripartite Agreement, Ex.C-2; which was executed between the parties. No weight can be given to the plea of opposite party Nos.1 & 2 that the complainants failed to make timely payments and, as such, the allotment in their favour was validly cancelled. By virtue of that Tripartite Agreement, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 were to receive payment of the balance Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 8 amount from the Bank itself and it was bound to disburse the balance amount of loan to them. Therefore, it cannot be held that the timely payments were not made by the complainants and the allotment in their favour was validly cancelled. He further submitted that no notice of the change of location of the flat was sent by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to the complainants and that location was changed, without their consent and against the terms and conditions of the agreement; which was proved on the record as Ex.C-1. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the change in location was necessitated on account of any of the factors, as contained in Clause-7 of the Agreement. This change in location itself is a ground for the refund of the amount deposited by the complainants with opposite party Nos.1 & 2. He also submitted that after letter dated 10.11.2012, Ex.C-13, vide which opposite party Nos.1 & 2 had agreed to waive the interest, was issued, the complainants immediately wrote letter dated 16.11.2012, Ex.C-15, to the Bank for the disbursement of the balance amount of loan in favour of opposite party Nos.1 & 2, in order to avail the concession of that waiver. In-spite of that request, the Bank did not disburse the balance amount of loan in favour of opposite party Nos.1 & 2, which is against the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement, and it committed an illegality, by writing letter dated 05.04.2012, Ex.C-10, threatening to recall the loan on account of the non-deposit of the Title Deed; when it was very much in the knowledge of the Bank that the Sale Deed was to be executed after the payment of the total price of the flat and delivery of possession thereof. In-spite of the fact that the complainants had been repeatedly sending e- mails to opposite party Nos.1 & 2 for completing the construction and Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 9 delivering the possession of the flat, they failed to do so and even did not comply with their request to refund the amount, in case they were unable to construct the flat and to deliver the possession thereof to them. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties stand proved. Therefore, the directions, as prayed for in the complaint, are liable to be issued to them. The interest is also to be allowed at the rate, mentioned in the Prayer Clause of the complaint. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments:
i) Kushal K. Rana Vs. M/s DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2012, decided on 09.09.2014 by the Hon'ble National Commission;
ii) Puneet Malhotra Vs. Parsavnath Developers Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No.232 of 2014, decided on 29.01.2015 by the Hon'ble National Commission.
iii) Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Selvaraj & Another Revision Petition No.380 of 2011, decided on March, 2011 by the Hon'ble National Commission; and
iv) Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Sushila Kataria Revision Petition No.3558 of 2011, decided on 27.03.2012 by the Hon'ble National Commission.
6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 & 2 that the complainants could have asked for the possession of the flat, only in case they had deposited the instalments payable by them in time. It was a "Down Payment Plan" and Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 10 they failed to pay the instalments by the stipulated dates, in-spite of the fact that the reminders were repeatedly issued to them. These opposite parties, at one stage, even offered to waive the interest, by writing letter dated 10.11.2012, Ex.C-13, and even then the balance amount was not paid. When such is the case, the complainants never became entitled to the possession of the flat. They cannot ask for the refund of the total amount, so paid, and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, Ex.C-1, the amount, so paid by them, is to be forfeited. He further submitted that the change in location of the flat was permissible by virtue of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the location was changed, in order to help the complainants to have possession of the constructed flat at an early date. That change was very much in their knowledge and they never objected to the same and now it does not lie in their mouth to allege that they had not consented to the change in location of the flat. It was for the complainants to make payments, as per the agreement, and as per the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement, the Bank was not liable to make those payments. Therefore, no liability can be fastened to the Bank.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.3 that the Bank complied with the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement, Ex.C-2, and, as per the request made by the complainants, disbursed the amount of Rs.18,00,000/-; out of the total sanctioned amount and thereafter no such request was made for making the payment of the balance amount to opposite party Nos.1 & 2. Moreover, the Bank was justified in not disbursing the balance amount; as the complainants failed to deposit the Sale Deed, which was the Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 11 security for the repayment of that loan, in-spite of the fact that letter to that effect was written to them. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.
8. It is the categorical case of the complainants that they were allotted flat No.702 in Tower No.5; regarding which agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed. That fact was not denied by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 in their written reply. However, they have taken up the plea that the location of that flat was changed to flat No.702 in Tower No.1. They have not placed on record any such document to prove that the said location was intimated to the complainants, or that they consented to the same. The first question arises for determination is, whether opposite party Nos.1 & 2 could have changed the location of the flat? For determining that question, Clause 7 of the agreement, Ex.C-1, is relevant and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced below:
"That it is further understood and agreed by the Buyer(s) that the area of the said Flat given in this Agreement is tentative and subject to change as per direction of the Sanctioning Authority or Architect or Structural Engineers of the Company, which may result in change (decrease/increase) in the area of the said Flat, change in its dimension, size, location, number, boundaries etc."
A perusal of this Clause makes it clear that opposite party Nos.1 & 2 could have changed the location of the flat, but they could have done so, where such change in location was as per the direction of the Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 12 Sanctioning Authority or Architect or Structural Engineers of the Company. Neither these opposite parties have pleaded any such fact in their written reply, nor they have produced on record any such evidence for proving that this change in the location was made as per the direction of the Sanctioning Authority or Architect or Structural Engineers.
9. It is now well settled that when any such change in the location is effected, notice must be given to the allottee and such a change in location becomes binding upon him, in case he gives a consent thereto. In Kushal K. Rana's case (supra), the plot was changed by the builder unilaterally, without the consent of the allottee. The agreement, so executed between the parties, contained a Clause; vide which the builder was authorized to change the plot. It was held therein that though the builder had created such an agreement, which would benefit him only and not the consumers, yet it was his bounden duty to ask the complainant, whether the reduced space would be suitable to his purpose or not. It was also held therein that without taking consent of the complainant, the builder cannot make the changes, even though it was authorized to do so. The ratio of this judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission applies squarely to the facts of the present case. Thus, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 could not have changed the location of the flat, without the consent of the complainants.
10. Can, in view of the submissions made by counsel for these opposite parties and the evidence produced on the record, it be held that the complainants had impliedly consented to the change in location of the flat? Counsel for the opposite parties has referred to reminder Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 13 dated 18.10.2009, Ex.OP-2; vide which intimation of the due instalment was given to the complainants. In this letter, reference has been made to the flat in Tower No.1. The question arises, whether this reminder was ever sent to the complainants? As per the postal receipt, which is embossed on this photostat copy, Ex.OP-2, the same was sent to some Deepali Jain, under Registered Post, and not to the complainants. Faced with that situation, counsel for these opposite parties tried to draw our attention towards the reminders dated 14.12.2009, 16.03.2010 and 16.03.2010. It is pertinent to note that these reminders were never tendered in evidence by the opposite parties. Those, being not a part of the evidence, cannot be looked into. Thereafter, counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the letter dated 08.06.2011, proved on record by the complainants themselves as Ex.C-6; vide which intimation of due instalment was given to them. In that letter, reference has been made to flat in Tower No.1. Merely mentioning of the other flat in this letter of intimation will not amount to implied consent of the complainants. They proved on record the e-mail dated 13.09.2011, Ex.C-7; which was sent to the opposite parties. They made it clear in that e-mail that the said change in location was not as per their choice and liking and that they were not ready to compromise on all the angles. It is very much clear from that e-mail that they never consented to the change of location of the flat. Rather, they opted for some other flat, which was in three- storeyed building.
11. In these circumstances, the complainants had every right to ask for the possession of flat No.702 in Tower No.5 and the opposite Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 14 parties could not have forced any other flat upon them, against their consent.
12. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed that the complainants had opted for "Down Payment Plan". However, that Payment Plan was not proved on the record by either party. As per the Statement issued by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and proved on the record as Ex.C-14, the position regarding the due payment, as on 10.11.2012, was Rs.19,56,824/-. The net amount payable was Rs.49,35,600/- and the amount demanded was Rs.43,93,170/-. The cleared amount was Rs.24,95,000/- and the current dues were Rs.18,98,170/-. After adding Sales Tax of Rs.58,654/-, the total amount due from the complainants was shown as Rs.19,56,824/-.
13. Can, in view of the evidence produced by the parties, it be held that the complainants had not paid the amounts on due dates? The said statement, Ex.C-14, was sent to the complainants, along with letter of the same date, Ex.C-13. Vide that letter, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 had shown their goodwill gesture, by way of waiving interest charges of Rs.8,10,948/- pending till the date of issuance of that letter. The most important document, relevant for the decision of the above posed question, is the Tripartite Agreement itself, Ex.C-2; which is an admitted document of the parties. This agreement was entered into between all the parties. As per that agreement, the Bank had agreed to give a loan of Rs.44,15,000/-, as per the terms of the other Loan Agreement dated 08.07.2008, and the agreement was regarding flat in Tower No.5. Clauses 9 and 10 of that agreement are most relevant/important and are reproduced below:
Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 15
"9. It is agreed by the Borrower/s that the Bank shall not be responsible or liable to ensure or ascertain the progress of construction and mere demand for payment would be sufficient for the Bank to effect disbursement as aforesaid. Without prejudice to the above and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Bank may in its sole discretion refused to disburse the loan until Bank has ascertained the stage of construction.
10. The Borrower/s has paid his own contribution in full to the Builder i.e. the cost of the dwelling until (including escalation, if any) less the loan. However, this would be without prejudice to any right available to Builder against the Borrower/s under the Agreement executed with Builder." These Clauses make it very much clear that the complainants had already paid their contribution in full to opposite party Nos.1 & 2, less the loan amount, and the Bank, on the demand for payment, was to make the disbursement in favour of opposite party Nos.1 & 2; though it was given the discretion to refuse the disbursement of the loan, until it had ascertained the stage of construction. In these circumstances, when opposite party Nos.1 & 2 were parties to that agreement, they were to send the reminders for the payment of the balance amount to the Bank itself, but they failed to do so. It is pertinent to note that the complainants did perform their part of the agreement, by writing letter dated 16.11.2012, Ex.C-15, to the Bank, after the receipt of the above said letter dated 10.11.2012, Ex.C-13; vide which opposite party Nos.1 & 2 Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 16 had agreed to waive the interest due till the date of issuance of that letter. In letter, Ex.C-15, the complainants mentioned that the work was going at full pace and the builder was likely to give possession of the flat within a year, so the Bank should disburse additional Rs.18,00,000/- to the builder at the earliest. No reply to that letter was given by the Bank, nor it has come out with any written reply in the present complaint for disclosing any reason, as to why the said amount was not disbursed to opposite party Nos.1 & 2, in-spite of the receipt of that letter.
14. Our attention was drawn by the counsel for the opposite parties towards the letter dated 05.04.2012, Ex.C-10; which had already been written by the Bank to the complainants regarding this housing loan. Vide that letter, the Bank asked the complainants to deposit the Title Deed of the property, which had not been deposited by them and on their failure to do so, it will be forced to call up the loan. It is pertinent to note that said letter was duly replied by the complainants, vide reply dated 17.04.2012, Ex.C-11. The reason for not depositing the Title Deed was disclosed in that reply. According to the complainants, the flat was still incomplete and it was not possible to do the registration thereof at that stage. They requested the Bank to take up the matter with the builder.
15. The Bank was not justified in issuing letter dated 05.04.2012, in view of the contents of the Tripartite Agreement, Ex.C-2. As per Clause 6 thereof, it was the builder, who was to deliver to the Bank the Sale Deed, relating to the apartment, in question, as and when executed and registered. The complainants had expressly and irrevocably authorized the builder and the Bank to retain the Sale Deed and not to Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 17 deliver the same to them, without the written consent of the Bank. It is very much clear from the terms and conditions of the agreement that the Sale Deed regarding the apartment was to be executed, after the payment of the total amount and delivery of flat to the complainants. The Bank cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath, by not disbursing the balance loan amount to opposite party Nos.1 & 2; though a specific request to that effect was made by the complainants and on the other hand threatening the complainants to recall the loan, on account of the non-deposit of the Title Deed; which was to come into existence, only after the payment of the total amount. This clearly makes out deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.
16. In view of what has been said above, it is to be concluded that opposite party Nos.1 & 2 were to send the reminder to the Bank itself for the disbursement of the balance loan amount and only in case of its refusal, in the exercise of the discretion so vested in it by virtue of the Tripartite Agreement, to call for that amount from the complainants. It cannot be said that there was any such lapse on the part of the complainants in non-payment of the balance amount. They performed their part of the agreement. Opposite party Nos.1 & 2, who were to construct and deliver the possession of the flat in Tower No.5, failed to do so and on its own, without the consent of the complainants, changed the location. That also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. Position was worse in Kushal K. Rana's case (supra). In that case, the complainant waddled out of the commitments and did not deposit the entire first five instalments. The question arose, whether he was justified or had some malafide intention? It was held Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 18 that it is to be borne in mind that the terms and conditions of the agreement is not a "one-way traffic" and both the parties are bound by it. In that case, the construction of the building was delayed and it was not ready, even after the expiry of three years, as promised, and till the filing of the complaint. It was held that the builder was bound to refund the amount, so deposited by the complainant, and interest at the rate of 18% per annum was allowed. Similarly in the other judgments, so relied upon by the counsel for the complainants, interest at the rate of 18% was allowed on the amount ordered to be refunded, but at the same time no compensation and cost of litigation were awarded.
17. In view of our above discussion, we conclude that on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount, so deposited by them with opposite party Nos.1 & 2, and compensation against opposite party No.3. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
i) Opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,95,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit of the different amounts till the date of payment (The amount, which is payable by the complainants to the Bank on account of the loan amount, shall be paid to the Bank and only the balance amount shall be paid to the complainants); and
ii) Opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.35,000/-, as compensation for deficiency in service on its part. Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2014 19
The opposite parties are directed to comply with this order within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the same.
18. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER August 19, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)