State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harjot Kaur vs M/S Chandigarh Royale City Promoters ... on 30 June, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 924 of 2016 Date of Institution : 15.12.2016 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Harjot Devi wife of Gurpal Singh, r/o Patti Rojan, VPO Chanjli, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab. ......Complainant V e r s u s M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.489-490, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160035, through its Chief Executive. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Corporate cum Registered Office: SCO No.44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh 160020, through its Managing Director. Sh.Neeraj Kansal, Director, M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Corporate cum Registered Office: SCO No.44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh 160020. Mr.Gaur, Manager, Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 489-490, 2nd Floor, Sector 35, Chandigarh. .... Opposite Parties Argued by:Sh.Satish Kumar, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3. Service of opposite party no.4 not pressed, as per order dated 13.01.2017. ====================================================== Complaint case No. : 925 of 2016 Date of Institution : 15.12.2016 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Parvati Devi wife of Sh.Raghubir Singh, r/o V.P.O. Chanjli, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab. ......Complainant V e r s u s M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.489-490, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160035, through its Chief Executive. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Corporate cum Registered Office: SCO No.44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh 160020, through its Managing Director. Sh.Neeraj Kansal, Director, M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Corporate cum Registered Office: SCO No.44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh 160020. Mr.Gaur, Manager, M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 489-490, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. .... Opposite Parties Argued by:Sh.Satish Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3. Service of opposite party no.4 not pressed, as per order dated 13.01.2017. ====================================================== Complaint case No. : 947 of 2016 Date of Institution : 20.12.2016 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Manraj Deep Singh Shoi son of Sh.Surinder Jeet Sohi. Inderpreet Sohi wife of Manraj Deep Sohi. Both resident of #6, Sector 70 SAS Nagar, Mohali. ......Complainants V e r s u s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Main Office, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its MD. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office SCO 44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its MD. Argued by: Sh.Subhash Chand, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2. ====================================================== Complaint case No. : 948 of 2016 Date of Institution : 20.12.2016 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Manraj Deep Singh Shoi son of Sh.Surinder Jeet Sohi. Inderpreet Sohi wife of Manraj Deep Sohi. Both resident of #6, Sector 70 SAS Nagar, Mohali. ......Complainants V e r s u s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Main Office, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its MD. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office SCO 44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its MD. Argued by: Sh.Subhash Chand, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2. ====================================================== Complaint case No. : 949 of 2016 Date of Institution : 20.12.2016 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Manraj Deep Singh Shoi son of Sh.Surinder Jeet Sohi. Inderpreet Sohi wife of Manraj Deep Sohi. Both resident of #6, Sector 70 SAS Nagar, Mohali. ......Complainants V e r s u s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Main Office, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its MD. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office SCO 44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its MD. Argued by: Sh.Subhash Chand, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2. ====================================================== Complaint case No. : 950 of 2016 Date of Institution : 20.12.2016 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Rajni Chandna wife of Anvish Chandna, resident of House No.31/1, Sector 12, PGI Campus, Chandigarh. ......Complainant V e r s u s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Main Office, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its MD. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office SCO 44, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its MD. Argued by: Sh.Subhash Chand, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2. ====================================================== Complaint case No. : 63 of 2017 Date of Institution : 20.01.2017 Date of Decision : 30.06.2017 Sanjeev Sharma son of Sh.H.K. Sharma, r/o H.No.240, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana. ......Complainant V e r s u s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.489-490, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160036. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited through its Branch Manager, having its office at 4th Floor, Tower-I, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013, Maharashtra. .... Opposite Parties Argued by:Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate for opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 exparte. Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid seven (07) consumer complaints, wherein the complainants have sought refund of the amount, paid towards purchase of residential units/plots, in the project of opposite parties/M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Since, the issues involved in all the seven consumer complaints, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, during arguments, on 22.06.2017, it was agreed by Counsel for the contesting parties, that the said complaints may be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
To dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.924 of 2016, titled as Harjot Devi Vs. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and ors. It is necessary to mention here that notice in this complaint was served upon the opposite parties on 19.12.2016, through Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate, who was present in this Court, to represent the opposite parties, in some other cases. On the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2017, Counsel for the complainant gave a statement that he did not press this complaint against opposite party no.4. Amended memorandum of parties was also taken on record, in that regard. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed their written reply/evidence on 23.02.2017. The matter was adjourned to 17.03.2017 for arguments, on which date, it was got adjourned by opposite parties no.1 to 3, subject to payment of costs. The matter was adjourned to 06.04.2017, for arguments, on which date, on request made, again it was adjourned to 19.04.2017. On the said date, again on request made by Counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned to 18.05.2017. In the meantime, opposite parties no.1 to 3 moved an application bearing no.338 of 2017 on 15.03.2017, to place on record, amended written statement, which was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2017. An opportunity was granted to the complainant to place on record, her rejoinder, if any. Thereafter, some legible documents were placed on record on 22.06.2017 by opposite parties no.1 to 3 and final arguments were also heard on the said date i.e. 22.06.2017.
The facts, in brief, are that the opposite parties, in the month of March 2011, launched their project of 200 Acres Smart City and invited desirous individuals to apply for purchase of plots/apartments/commercial sites, while assuring all round development and best basic amenities. It was stated in the advertisement, the opposite parties were representing the possession of the plots being delivered and whole of the infrastructure ready to carve out a world-class township. It was further stated that the first buyers namely Smt.Krisna Rani wife of Ranjit Kumar and Smt.Urmila Rani wife of Harkesh Kumar Bhagta, were invited by opposite party No.3, in order to have an overlook of the project and explained through projector the entire setup of township having modern facilities, infrastructure, environmental friendly and adequate commercial set up alongwith the sites for hospital, school, club etc. Both the above named persons showed their interest to purchase a plot measuring 150 square yards @Rs.11,500/- per square yard, in the month of March 2011. The plot was booked in their name, which was later on purchased by the complainant Harjot Devi and on asking of opposite party no.3, an expression of interest, Annexure C-1 was signed by the present complainant with the opposite parties. She also paid an amount of Rs.3 lacs, on 03.03.2011 vide receipt Annexure C-2. It is her case that the above expression of interest incorporates the plan to make the payment, towards price of the said plot. It was stated that the said expression of interest was not properly signed and stamped by the opposite parties. Neither allotment letter was issued, nor buyer's agreement in respect of the said plot was offered for signing. It was assured that possession of the developed plot will be handed over within a period of six months. Total price of the plot was fixed at Rs.17.25 lacs. As per demands raised, the total amount of Rs.12 lacs was paid by the complainant, in the following manner:-
Sr. No Amount Date 300000.00 03.03.2011 600000.00 31.10.2011 20000.00 27.05.2012 180000.00 19.10.2014 It is her case that despite having received more than 70% of the payment towards price of the said plot, no intimation was given, as to whether, necessary approvals/permissions were obtained by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to launch the project, in question; and as to by which date, possession of the developed plot will be offered to the complainant. It is further stated that on 13.05.2012 and 07.08.2012, advertisements again appeared in various newspaper on behalf of the opposite parties, asking the intending general public to buy plots/apartments/flats in 200 acres of smart city launched by the opposite parties, at Zirakpur Patiala National Highway. However, no reference was made in those advertisements, whether the project was approved or not and whether its layout plans were got sanctioned from the Competent Authority or not. Vide letter dated 18.10.2013, the complainant was intimated that an amount equal to 29.43% towards price of the plot is due for payment and for not paying the same in time, penal amount of Rs.86,215/- was also claimed. She was also asked to make payment of the said amount before 07.11.2013. The above said demand was resisted by the complainant. Her request to give her allotment letter went in vain. Despite representations made, buyer's agreement was not offered for signing. After great efforts, provisional allotment letter was issued on 16.10.2014 Annexure C-8, showing allotment of plot no.1023, measuring 150 square yards, in her favour. Some terms and conditions of allotment were also incorporated on 2nd page of the said allotment letter. At the end, it was specifically stated that allottee will sign the plot buyer's agreement within 15 days of issuance of the allotment letter. At the time of arguments, it was specifically asked to the Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3, as to whether, thereafter, at any point of time, the buyer's agreement was offered to the complainant for signing. The answer was in the negative. At the same time, there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time, intimation was ever sent to the complainant to come and sign the buyers' agreement.
It is further the case of the complainant that thereafter, when she visited the site, even at that time, development of the project was not in progress. Many permissions were still not available with opposite parties no.1 to 3. She made a request for refund of her amount paid, but they refused to do so. It was further stated that when she contacted the office of opposite parties on 03.12.2016, she was handed over fresh proposal/statement Annexure C-9, (calculation sheet for the period from 01.04.2010 to 15.03.2017) by opposite party no.4, showing amount due for payment. It is her case that in many other similar cases, in respect of the same builder (opposite parties) orders have already been passed by this Commission, directing refund of amount paid, on account of the reason that when the project, in question, was launched, not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties. It was further stated that the plot, in question, was not ready for delivery of possession. Huge amount deposited by the complainant, has been utilized by the opposite parties, without handing over physical possession of the plot, even after a lapse of 5 years. It was further stated that most of the payments were made at Chandigarh, in the Head Office of the opposite parties, as such, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. By stating as above, prayer has been made to issue directions to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.12 lacs, alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
To the complaint filed, opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed their joint written statement, wherein, it was not controverted that to setup a township for an area measuring 200 acres, the above said project was launched by them. It was stated that the project in which the plot was booked by the complainant, was a future project and the said fact was in the knowledge of the complainant. It was further stated that necessary permissions were granted to the opposite parties in the year 2012. It was specifically stated that the complainant would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as she has spent the amount for future gains. Pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged. Jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged by stating that settlement of dispute between the parties would involve to the leading of detailed and voluminous evidence, as such, the matter cannot be decided in summary proceedings and only Civil Court is competent to adjudicate upon this dispute.
On merits, it was specifically admitted in para no.1 of the written reply that the project, in question, consisting of 200 acres of land, was launched in the year 2011. The factum of purchase of plot, in question, in the first instance by Smt.Krisna Rani wife of Ranjit Kumar and Smt.Urmila Rani wife of Harkesh Kumar Bhagta, was admitted. Its price was also not disputed. It was further stated that expression of interest filled by the complainant, is merely a registration form for showing interest, for making investment, in future project of the opposite parties no.1 to 3. It was averred that at no point of time, any promise was made that possession of the plot will be handed over within a period of six months, from the date of signing of the said expression of interest. Allotment of plot measuring 150 square yards, vide letter dated 16.10.2014 Annexure C-8 was admitted. Issuance of brochure showing salient features of the project was not controverted. Payments made were also admitted, to the extent of Rs.11,80,000/-. It was stated that there was no assurance given to refund the amount with interest, as alleged by the complainant. It was averred that development work was started, after getting necessary approvals vide documents Annexures R-2 to R-5. It was pleaded that some amount was due for payment by the complainant and further EDC/PDC charges were also to be paid by her. It was stated that vide letter dated 05.01.2013 Annexure R-6, it was intimated that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were going to start offer of possession of the plots from October 2014. Before that, the complainant was asked to get the documents issued, like sale agreement/buyer's agreement, allotment letter if not already done. Similar intimation was given vide letter dated 10.10.2014 Annexure R-7. It was intimated that process to handover possession will start in the month of November 2014. Directions were again issued to get the above said documents completed. It was pleaded that the project was started in the year 2011 and it was completed in the year 2014. The prices of the properties have gone down, which led the complainant to file this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in providing service, on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 3. It was also stated that the entire amount paid by the complainant, was spent on development of the project and as such, at this stage she can't seek refund of the amount paid. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.
The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
Arguments were addressed in line with the averments made in the complaints and written statements, filed in the respective cases, referred to above.
We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, carefully.
Heavy reliance has been placed by opposite parties no.1 to 3 to say that the project was started and completed as per the provisions of The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short the PAPRA). The relevant facts came out from the record of the case file, are noted as under:-
21.11.2011 = Application moved to CTP for grant of permission of change of land use.
28.11.2011 = Permission granted for change of land use for 77.87 acres (R-3 page 24) 03.01.2012 = NOC from PPCB (page 27) 24.02.2012 = NOC from Irrigation Department Ropar (page 30) 03.08.2012 = Issue of letter of intent 31.12.2012 Valid upto 30.12.2015 = Licence to develop a colony 09.09.2014 = Certificate of registration as promotor 18.11.2014 = Provisional NOC for approval of passage by Highway Administrator cum Executive Engineer ,Central Works Division, Mohali.
07.01.2015 = Final NOC by PSPCL, Patiala 27.01.2015 = NOC from Forest Division Officer subject to obtaining NOC from National Highway/P.W.D. 19.05.2015 = Provisional NOC for approval of passage by Highway Administrator cum Executive Engineer ,Central Works Division, Mohali.
18.04.2016 = NOC from Aviation Angle issued by Director of OPs (ATS), New Delhi (at page 57) It is not in dispute that the plot, in question, was, in the first instance sold to Smt.Krisna Rani wife of Ranjit Kumar and Smt.Urmila Rani wife of Harkesh Kumar Bhagta, in the month of March 2011. The complainant purchased the said plot from the above named persons, on making payment of an amount of Rs.3 lacs, to the opposite parties on 03.03.2011. The facts mentioned above, makes it very clear that when the project was launched and sold, not even an application has yet been filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3 for grant of Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate. It was moved only on 21.11.2011. There was a complete violation of the provisions of PAPRA.
Further contention of Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 that expression of interest would only amount to registration of a plot, in future project, is liable to be rejected. Under similar circumstances, in the case of Jag j ot Singh Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2017, decided on 23.05.2017, a similar expression of interest was dealt with, by this Commission. In that case, similar contention raised by Counsel for the opposite party/builder was rejected by this Commission, by observing as under:-
" In the present case, an attempt has also been made to by-pass the above provision by showing the sale as an expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments also, by Counsel for the opposite party that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed, as such, there was no need to get the Buyer's Agreement executed. It may be stated here that it was an outright sale, when first payment was accepted by the opposite party, vide cheque dated 29.10.2011. Thereafter also, the amount was received by the opposite party and in all, it has received substantial amount of Rs.29,25,000/-. Above said contention raised by the opposite party, qua similar project, in the same area, was rejected by this Commission, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, wherein it was observed as under:-
"Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice."
It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite party. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite party was guilty of launching a project against mandate of law. In view of above contention of Counsel for the opposite party that the complainant waived of his right to raise any objection because it was known to him that the project has still not been approved, however, he opted to purchase, is liable to be rejected."
It is on record that, in the present case, CLU was granted in favour of opposite parties no.1 to 3 by the Competent Authority only on 28.11.2011, subject to many conditions. It was specifically stated that no development work can be undertaken, unless getting the layout plan approved. It also comes out from the record that the project was to be developed consisting of 200 acres of land. It was promised that 60% of the area will be left for public utility conveniences, however, the CLU was granted only for about 78 acres of land. There is nothing on record to show that when the project was launched, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were owner of 200 acres of land. Infact, application was moved only to get CLU certificate issued qua the land measuring about 78 acres. It appears that general public/consumers were misrepresented. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice on this count. Under above circumstances, it can be said that the complainant would fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under the Act. The plea raised to the effect that since the sale of the plot had not yet been confirmed, as such, there was no need to get the Buyer's Agreement executed, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
Further, a similar contention raised by the same builder/opposite parties no.1 to 3 was rejected by this Commission, in a case titled as Seema Nagpal Vs. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and others, Consumer complaint bearing No.39 of 2015. The said complaint was also filed qua the project in dispute. In that case also, the complainant had purchased a plot, in this project, qua which, even buyer's agreement was signed (in the present case there is nothing to show that buyers agreement was ever offered for signing to the complainant). When the opposite parties failed to discharge their obligation, a complaint was filed, wherein rejecting similar arguments raised by them and after noting contentions of both the parties, it was decided against the opposite parties, on 04.05.2015. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:-
"20. It is evident from the registration form that at the time of launching the project in June 2011, the Opposite Parties did not have the necessary permissions/ approvals, from the Competent Authorities. As is evident, they even did not have the permission for Change of Land Use (CLU). The same for an area measuring 77.87 Acres falling in village Karala, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. Mohali for residential purposes was accorded vide Chief Town Planner, Punjab's Memo No.8782 CTP(PB) SP.432(M) dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure R-4) with reference to the Opposite Parties application dated 21.11.2011. The complainant submitted application for allotment on 3.6.2011. Thus, when the Opposite Parties launched the project, they had not even applied for the change of land use permission. It is further borne out, from the letter dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure R-6) that the Punjab Pollution Control Board wrote to the Administrative Officer (licencing), GMADA for considering the case of the project of Opposite Parties, for grant of licence under Section 5 of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter for short to be referred as PAPRA 1995). However, the licence to develop a residential colony was granted to the Opposite Parties by GMADA vide Licence bearing No.LDC-10/2012 (Annexure R-16) on 31.12.2012 and Letter of Intent was issued vide Memo No.GMADA/ CTP/2012/250 dated 03.08.2012 (Annexure R-13). The Opposite Parties launched the project without obtaining the necessary permissions and approvals.
21. The Opposite Parties started booking the residential plots, and duping the innocent customers of their hard earned money, much earlier to the grant of approval to their project by GMADA through licence dated 31.12.2012. According to law, they could not start the booking of residential plots, and obtain money from the innocent consumers, before actually the licence and all the permissions and sanctions had been granted to them, by the Competent Authorities. In Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., III (2007) CPJ 7 (NC), it was held that a builder should not collect money, from the prospective buyers, without obtaining the required permissions, such as zoning plan, layout plan, schematic building plan etc. It is the duty of the builder, to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, such as sanction of construction etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchasers of the flats/buildings. The ratio of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. If the bookings are made and the booking amount is collected, before obtaining the necessary sanctions, permissions, licences and without getting the necessary approvals, the same amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the builder. Since the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the condition referred to above, as stipulated in the Expression of Interest (Annexure C-1), it was their bounden duty to refund the amount, paid by the complainant, alongwith the prevailing bank interest.
22. Not only this, even the provisional allotment letter dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure C-9) in respect of Plot No.1110 was issued in favour of Mrs. Seema Nagpal, complainant, after a gap of more than 03 years, from the date of Expression of Interest (Annexure C-1). The Opposite Parties even did not mention anything regarding execution of Plot Buyer's Agreement in their written statement, what to talk of placing the same on record. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties by raising different, illegal and unjustified demands, indulged into unfair trade practice. Clearly there was no transparency in the whole process. Undoubtedly, the act of the Opposite Parties, in the absence of requisite permissions/approvals from the Competent Authority, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice."
The facts of the present case are squarely covered to the ratio of judgment passed by this Commission in the above case.
Furthermore, similar view was taken by this Commission, in another case, titled as Sh.Sandeep Singla Vs. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and others, consumer complaint no.172 of 2014, decided on 12.02.2015 and the case was allowed in favour of the complainant. Refund of the amount deposited alongwith interest, compensation and litigation costs was ordered by this Commission, in the said case. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 12.02.2015, the builder (opposite parties in this case), went in First Appeal bearing No.189 of 2015 before the National Commission, New Delhi, which was dismissed at the preliminary stage, vide order dated 21.10.2016, by observing as under:-
"Learned State Commission rightly observed that OP projected 200 acres City of Dreams whereas land used for residential purpose was granted only for part of the land in the year 2012 and in such circumstances complainant, who was allured by false advertisement was entitled to get refund of the amount with interest and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing refund with interest only at the rate of 9% p.a. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs."
Position in the present case is worst. Vide letter 16.10.2014 Annexure C-8, plot bearing no.1023, measuring 150 square yards, was shown to have been allotted to the complainant. We have gone through the layout plan/site plan Annexure R-2 on record and are of the opinion that no such plot exists at the site. For that, at the time of arguments, Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to give any reasonable explanation. In the said allotment letter, it is specifically stated that buyer's agreement will be signed within 15 days, from the date of issuance of allotment letter i.e. from 16.10.2014. However, there is nothing on record to show that buyer's agreement was got signed from the complainant ever. The first payment was received in the month of March 2011. By not offering buyer's agreement for signing within a reasonable time, say two to three months, opposite parties no.1 to 3 are guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice and that too after receiving 25% of the total sale consideration. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
"The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated 23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer's Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer's Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected".
As such, by not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing, within a reasonable time aforesaid and even till date, despite receiving huge amount equal to 70% of the total sale consideration, opposite parties no.1 to 3, indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.
Contention of Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 that possession was offered to the complainant vide letter dated 05.01.2013 Annexure R-6, appears to be incorrect. In the said letter, it was only stated that possession will be handed over in the month of October 2014. It cannot be termed as letter of offer of possession. Similarly, in letter dated 10.10.2014 Annexure R-7, it is stated that possession will be offered in the month of November 2014. However, there is nothing on record to show that possession of the plot was actually offered/delivered to the complainant. Provisional allotment letter dated 16.10.2014 Annexure C-8 negates the contents of letters R-6 and R-7. From reading of contents of the said provisional allotment letter, it comes out that by that time, buyer's agreement was not signed between the parties, what to talk of offering physical possession of the plot, in question. The plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that possession of the plot was offered to the complainant, vide letters aforesaid, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.
In the present case, sequence of events makes it very clear that there was a complete violation of the provisions of PAPRA. According to Section 2(n) of PAPRA, "development works" means internal development works and external development works. According to Section 3 of Chapter II, the promoter is liable to do as under in a Colony to be developed by it (relevant extract):-
"3.General liabilities of promoter.-(1) xx xx xx xx (2) A promoter who develops a colony or who constructs or intends to construct such building of apartments shall,- (a) make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed, such title to the land having been duly certified by an attorney-at-law or an advocate of not less than seven years standing, after he has examined the transactions concerning it in the previous thirty years ; and if the land is owned by another person, the consent of the owner of such land to the development of the colony or construction of the building has been obtained;
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(c) given inspection on seven days, notice or demand,-
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(i) of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony; and xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(g) specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly;
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(j) not allow persons to enter into possession until an occupation certificate required under any law is duly given by the appropriate authority under that law and no person shall take possession of an apartment until such occupation certificate is obtained ;
Further according to Section 4(1) of the PAPRA, no promoter shall issue an advertisement or prospectus, offering for sale any apartment or plot, or inviting persons who intend to take such plot to make advances or deposits, unless:-
"(a) the promoter holds a certificate of registration under subsection (2) of section 21 and it is in force and has not been suspended or revoked, and its number is mentioned in the advertisement or prospectus; and
(b) a copy of the advertisement or prospectus is filed in the office of the competent authority before its issue or publication.
(2) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The advertisement or prospectus shall be available for inspection at the office of the promoter and at the site where the building is being constructed or on the land being developed into a colony, alongwith the documents specified in this section and in section 3."
According to Section 5 of the PAPRA, it is provided as under:-
"5.(1) Any promoter, who desires to develop a land into a colony, shall make an application in the prescribed form alongwith the prescribed information and with the prescribed fee to the competent authority for grant of permission for the same and separate permission will be necessary for each colony.
(2) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1), the competent authority, after making enquiry into the title to the land, extent and situation of the land, capacity of the promoter to develop the colony, layout of the colony, conformity of the development of the colony with the neighbouring areas, plan of development works to be executed in the colony and such other matters as it may deem fit, and after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard and also taking into consideration the opinion of the prescribed authority, shall pass an order, in writing, recording reasons either granting or refusing to grant such permission.
(3) Where an order is passed granting permission under subsection (2), the competent authority shall grant a licence in the Consumer Complaint No.273 of 2016 10 prescribed form, after the promoter has furnished a bank guarantee equal to twenty five percent of the estimated cost of the development works certified by the competent authority and the promoter has undertaken to enter into an agreement in the prescribed form for carrying out completion of development works in accordance with the conditions of the licence so granted.
(4) The licence granted under sub-section (3) shall be valid for a period of three years and will be renewable from year to year on payment of prescribed fee."
Section 9 of the PAPRA relates to the maintenance of accounts of the sums taken by promoters and the same reads as under:-
"9. Accounts of sums taken by promoters.- The promoter shall maintain a separate account in any scheduled bank of sums taken by him from persons intending to take or who have taken apartments or plots, as advance, towards sale price or for any other purpose, or, deposit, including any sum so taken towards the share capital for the formation of a co-operative society or a company, or towards the outgoings (including ground rent, if any, municipal or other local taxes, charges for water or electricity, revenue assessment, interest on mortgages or other encumbrances, if any, stamp duty and registration fee for the agreement of sale and the conveyance); and the promoter shall hold the said moneys for the purposes for which they were given and shall disburse the moneys for those purposes including for the construction of apartments and, in the case of colonies, for meeting the cost of development works, and shall on demand, in writing, by the competent authority make full and true disclosure of all transactions in respect of that account and shall not utilize for any other purpose the amounts so collected for a particular purpose."
According to Section 14(ii) :-
"in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5."
Then Rules were framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA; namely, Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995 (in short, "the Rules") and according to Rules 7, 8 & 17 of these Rules , it has been provided as under:-
"7. Disclosure regarding registration and licence - The promoter shall disclose the number of his certificate of registration granted under sub-section (2) of section 21 and, in the case of a colony, also the validity of licence issued under sub-section (3) of section 5 and display the certificate of registration and the licence so granted at a conspicuous place in his office and make it available for inspection to the persons taking or intending to take an apartment or a plot in the colony and to a person authorized by the competent authority."
Perusal of the above provisions of PAPRA and Rules reveals that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were required to be registered and to get the licence to develop the Colony under above referred provisions. However, in the present case, admittedly Licence to develop a colony was obtained only on 31.12.2012 i.e. after launching and selling the project, in question. Further, according to Section 4 of the PAPRA, no Promoter shall issue an advertisement or receive an application, in respect of its project, unless it holds a certificate of registration. However, in the present case, certificate of registration as promoter was obtained by opposite parties no.1 to 3, only on 09.09.2014 i.e. after about three years of selling the project. According to Section 4(2) of the PAPRA, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were not entitled to receive the applications till the CLU and layout plan of the colony regarding the development works and validity of the licence is there but in the present case, they have sold the project before doing so. Not only as above, record reveals that permissions/NOCs from various Departments were obtained by opposite parties no.1 to 3, even after allotment of the plot, in question, i.e. even after 16.10.2014 (date of allotment of plot) like NOC from PSPCL was obtained on 07.01.2015; NOC from Forest Department was obtained on 27.01.2015, NOC from aviation angle was obtained on 18.04.2016 etc. Thus, it is proved on record that opposite parties no.1 to 3 have not complied with the basic provisions under the PAPRA and Rules made thereunder before inviting the application and on the other hand, have been taking all the money from the complainant, which act amounted to unfair trade practice.
As far as the plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer, as she has purchased the said plot, for future gain, by selling it later on, at a higher price, it may be stated here that there is nothing on record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Since, opposite parties no.1 to 3 have leveled allegations against the complainant, as such, the onus lays upon them, to prove it, which they have failed to do so. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. In view of above, plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit stands rejected.
Another objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here that according to Section 17 of the Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any claimed, exceeds Rs.20 lacs but not exceeds Rs.1 crore. Similar view was taken by larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-
" It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore. "
In the present case, if the total cost of the plot, in question, and other relief claimed by the complainant, is clubbed together, the aggregate value exceeds Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. In this view of the matter, the objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, stands rejected, being infructuous.
Further contention of opposite parties no.1 to 3 that the complaint is barred by limitation is devoid of any force. It is on record that before signing expression of interest, first payment was made by the complainant in the month of March 2011. Thereafter, she continued making payments. Lot of time was taken before issuance of allotment letter on 16.10.2014. Even thereafter, she was asked to make payment towards price of the said plot. However, the fact remains that till date actual physical possession of the plot, in question, has not been offered and delivered to the complainant, by opposite parties no.1 to 3. Therefore, since it is an admitted that till date, offer of possession of the plot, in question, has not been made to the complainant, and on the other hand, amount deposited was also not refunded to her, alongwith interest, as such, there is a continuing cause of action, in her favour, in view of principle of law laid down, in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by limitation. The plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Further contention of Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 that this Commission is not having territorial jurisdiction, is also liable to be rejected. On perusal of record of the case, we feel that the arguments raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, are fallacious. Payment receipts Annexures C-2, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, Annexure C-3 in the sum of Rs.6 lacs and Annexure C-5 in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, reveal that the same were issued from Registered Office of opposite parties no.1 to 3, i.e. from SCO No.44, Sector 20-C, at Chandigarh. On account of these receipts, a part of cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant, to file this complaint, before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Plea raised regarding territorial jurisdiction by opposite parties no.1 to 3, stands rejected.
At the same time, it is also held that no complicated question of facts and law are involved in this case. It is a simple case of non-delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) purchased by the complainant(s), in the project of opposite parties no.1 to 3. There is ample evidence on record, which proves that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice. This Commission is, therefore, competent to adjudicate the present complaint. Plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
No other point was urged by the contesting parties.
For the reasons recorded above, all the seven complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
Complaint case No. 924 of 2016 , Harjot Devi Vs. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed as under :-
To refund the amount of Rs.12 lacs, to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by her, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-to the complainant, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainant and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, being not pressed by the complainant.
Complaint case No. 925 of 2016 , Parvati Devi Vs. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed as under :-
To refund the amount of Rs.12 lacs, to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by her, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-, to the complainant, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainant and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, being not pressed by the complainant.
Complaint case No. 947 of 2016 , Manraj Deep Singh Shoi and another Vs. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and another. The opposite parties jointly and severally are directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, to the complainants, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by them, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-to the complainants, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainants and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint case No. 948 of 2016 , Manraj Deep Singh Shoi and another Vs. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and another. The opposite parties jointly and severally are directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.10,50,000/-, to the complainants, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by them, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-, to the complainants, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainants and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint case No. 949 of 2016 , Manraj Deep Singh Shoi and another Vs. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and another. The opposite parties jointly and severally are directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.13,50,000/-, to the complainants, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by them, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-to the complainants, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainants and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint case No. 950 of 2016 , Rajni Chandna Vs. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., and another. The opposite parties jointly and severally are directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.5 lacs, to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by her, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-, to the complainant, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainant and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint case No. 63 of 2017 , Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and another. Opposite party no.1 is directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.18,87,452/-, to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by him, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs1,75,000/-for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/-to the complainant, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In case, the payment of awarded amounts at sr.no. (i) to (iii) is not made, within the stipulated period, then the amount at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. from the actual dates of deposits made by the complainant and amounts at sr.no.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed with no order as to cost, as no relief is claimed against it, by the complainant However, it is made clear that if the complainant(s), in any of the complaints above, have raised loan from any banking/financial Institution, for making payment towards the said units/plots, it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant(s).
Certified copy of this order be placed on all connected files, referred to above.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
30.06.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Rg.