State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Banwari Lal Sharma vs Janta Land Promoters Ltd. on 4 December, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017
Date of institution : 19.06.2017
Reserved on : 20.11.2017
Date of decision : 04.12.2017
Shri Banwari Lal Sharma son of Late Shri Ram Rakha Mal, resident
of House No.1353, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh-160 020.
.......Complainant
Versus
1. Janta Land Promoters Limited, Registered and Corporate
Office at SCO No.39-42, Sector 82, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab (140306) through its Managing Director / Director /
Authorized Representative.
2. Mr. Kulwant Singh, Managing Director, Janta Land Promoters
Limited, Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.39-42,
Sector 82, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab (140 306).
........Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Banwari Lal Sharma (In Person). For the opposite parties: Shri Naresh Kumar, Advocate for Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant, Banwari Lal Sharma, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 2
i) to hand over actual physical possession of apartment/flat bearing No.J-602, facing Green, measuring 2490 square feet in Wing-J, 6th Floor (SUPER MEGA) FALCON View, Phase-2, Sector 66-A, Mohali, Punjab along with all the basic amenities after obtaining necessary permissions, occupation and completion certificates from the Government authorities;
ii) to get registered conveyance and sale deed of flat in question on payment of charges by the complainant directly to the Registering Authority;
iii) to refund the amount of service tax illegally deducted along with interest from the respective dates of deposits and not to raise any further demand on that head;
iv) to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the deposited amount of ₹76,43,000/- from 11.11.2016 i.e. the promised date of possession till actual delivery of possession of the flat;
v) to pay compensation of ₹6,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony, physical harassment , deficiency in service, negligence and adopting unfair trade practice; and
vi) to pay ₹75,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
Facts of the Complaint:
2. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant is 80 years old senior citizen. In his younger days he had spent considerable time in Chandigarh till the completion of his studies in Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 3 Panjab University, Chandigarh. After completing his studies he served as a Lecturer in Panjab University and subsequently after his return from USA he served almost for four years as Scientist in CSIO, Chandigarh. Thereafter due to service exigencies he had to leave Chandigarh and served in NIT, Kurukshetra and N.C. College of Engineering at Panipat. It was the dream of the complainant to relocate himself permanently in or around Chandigarh after his superannuation as most of his relatives and friends are living in the same vicinity. To fulfil his dream of independent residential Flat/Apartment the complainant started searching for a project having salient features, which could fulfil all his dreams. It is averred that in December 2013 the complainant approached the opposite parties with a view to purchase a residential plot in the project;
namely, Super Mega, Falcon View, Phase-2, Sector 66-A, Mohali, exclusively for residential purposes. The complainant was allured by the salient features of the said projects as explained to him by the representative of the opposite parties. The complainant was made to understand that the opposite parties are well-equipped and have all the necessary approvals and sanctions for the said project. The brochure gave attractive specifications of the flat and referred to the availability of the basic amenities and facilities which were to be provided to the complainant at the time of delivery of possession of the flat. In view of this, the complainant purchased a brochure and vide pre-printed application dated 26.1.2014 applied for allotment of a residential 3 BHK apartment/flat bearing No.J-602 measuring 2490 square feet in the above said project of the opposite parties. Along Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 4 with the said application the complainant paid an amount of ₹11,00,000/-, as booking amount against the amount sought of ₹9,03,123/-. The complainant opted for the Down Payment Plan for making payment towards the said Apartment/Flat. As per the Down Payment Plan opted by the complainant, the price of the Unit after giving rebate was fixed at ₹70,96,500/-. Besides this, the complainant was required to pay charges towards parking space, preferential location charges and service tax etc. In all, the complainant paid ₹75,28,000/- to the opposite parties towards price of the said Unit i.e. ₹67,15,626/- towards sale price, ₹2,07,513/- towards service tax; ₹2,00,000/- towards parking charges; ₹6,180/- towards service tax on parking charges; ₹3,54,825/- towards preferential location charges and ₹43,856/- towards service tax on preferential location charges. It is further averred that the complainant was allotted Apartment/Flat bearing No.J-602, Facing Green, measuring 2490 square feet in Wing-J, 6th Floor (Super Mega), Falcon View, Phase-2, Sector 66-A, Mohali, vide allotment letter/agreement dated 12.5.2014. The entire down payment was incorporated in the said allotment letter, which was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties. As per clause 2.2 thereof, only the balance amount of ₹6,92,124/- was required to be paid by the complainant on offer of possession of the Unit in question. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter were totally favourable to the opposite parties since the complainant had already paid the substantial amount and being in disadvantageous position. As per clause 2.5 of the said Agreement, in case of failure to make timely Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 5 payments, the complainant was made liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum for the first month, 12% per annum for the second month and thereafter 15% per annum for the third month. Thereafter the opposite parties made themselves entitled to cancel the Agreement and refund the amount paid, without any interest, after forfeiting substantial amount equal to 10% of the sale consideration. As per clause 2.24 of the Agreement, the opposite parties were liable to hand over physical possession of the fully constructed unit in favour of the complainant within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter dated 12.5.2014 i.e. on or before 11.11.2016 subject to force majeure circumstances, failing which, the opposite parties were required to pay penalty at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot of the area of the residential apartment per month. Thereafter vide letter dated 22.9.2016 the opposite parties made a demand of ₹1,00,000/- on the pretext of installation of copper piping for all AC stations in the Apartment and as such, the complainant paid the amount of ₹1,00,000/-, vide cheque dated 7.10.2016 to the opposite parties i.e. ₹1,00,000/- towards the fittings and ₹15,000/- towards the taxes. In this manner the complainant in all paid ₹76,43,000/- as a total sum by 7.10.2016. After waiting for offer of possession for some time, the complainant sent e-mail dated 9.12.2016 to the opposite parties and raised the issue regarding non-delivery of the possession of the Unit by the stipulated date. Request for the payment of compensation for the period of delay as per the terms of the Agreement was also made. In response to the said e-mail the opposite parties vide e-mail dated 29.12.2016 Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 6 informed the complainant that his case for compensation is under process and that possession will be handed over by August 2017. No reason whatsoever has been given by the opposite parties for the delay in delivery of possession of the said Apartment/Flat. To the utter shock of the complainant the opposite parties, vide e-mail dated 2.1.2017 informed the complainant that the amount of ₹18,976/- is still pending on account of service tax on parking charges. It was further intimated that out of compensation amount of ₹39,840/-, after deducting TDS amount and ₹18,976/-, the complainant is entitled to remaining amount of ₹16,880/- only. To the contrary the complainant had already paid the entire amount towards the said parking and other charges. The complainant, vide e-mail dated 2.1.2017 brought all these facts to the notice of the opposite parties and made a request to pay full amount of compensation without any deduction but to no avail. In pursuance of various communications between the parties from 2.1.2017 to 17.3.2017 the complainant raised the issue of delay in offering the possession and also illegal deductions and demand raised by the opposite parties. In the end the complainant sent e-mail dated 27.3.2017 giving final notice of 15 days to the opposite parties to redress his grievance i.e. to hand over possession of the Unit in question; pay compensation for the period of delay; refund the excess amount realized towards service tax and pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. The opposite parties vide e-mail dated 8.4.2017 intimated the complainant that he is liable to pay service tax in view of Circular dated 10.2.2012 of the Government of India. Cheque in Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 7 the sum of ₹39,280/- towards compensation for the period of delay i.e. from 12.11.2016 to 31.1.2017 (after deducting 10% TDS and balance amount of ₹18,976/-) was sent to him. Thereafter neither update in respect of delivery of possession of the Unit in question was given to the complainant nor the opposite parties paid compensation for the period of delay in handing over possession of the said Unit. However, the opposite parties paid paltry amount of compensation to the tune of ₹22,410/-, vide cheque dated 20.6.2017, which was accepted under protest. Even upto the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 19.6.2017, the opposite parties were not ready with delivery of possession of the Unit for want of construction and development at the site and the basic amenities promised in the brochure. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the present complaint has been filed for issuance of the aforementioned directions to the opposite parties.
Defence of the Opposite Parties:
3. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections to the effect that the State Government has granted LOI on 10.5.2011 and subsequently an Agreement was entered with the State Government for development of Super Mega Mixed Use Integrated Industrial Park Project, spreading over in Sector 66-A, 82 & 83, SAS Nagar. After getting approval of the layout plan, it was proposed to construct multi-
storeyed apartments; namely, Falcon View. The required building plan was got approved from the competent authority. It is averred Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 8 that the complainant got booked an Apartment No.J-602 measuring 2491 square feet at a total price of ₹70,96,500/- @ ₹3,065/- per square foot after giving rebate of ₹5,35,350/- by depositing ₹69,23,139/- (principal ₹67,15,626/- + service tax of ₹2,07,513/- and another amount of ₹6,04,861/-on account of other services/charges. The allotment letter was issued to the complainant, vide No.4419-20 dated 12.5.2014 under the down payment plan as per his offer given in the application for booking. The complainant is required to pay the balance payment of ₹3,80,874/- plus other charges including service tax etc. at the time of delivery of possession. It is further averred that as per the condition of allotment letter, the possession was to be given within 30 months from the date of allotment i.e. on or before 12.11.2016. As per condition No.2.24, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot of the area of the apartment per month on expiry of the period of 30 months upto which the possession of the apartment was to be offered and in view of the same the compensation has already been released to the complainant upto May 2017. The compensation for the period from June 2017 onwards will be paid till the date of delivery of possession of the Apartment to the complainant. The opposite parties invited construction companies by floating tenders for the selection of competent and reputed construction agencies for the construction of the entire Falcon View Project by giving the advertisement in "the Tribune". On the receipt of the bids from the contractors, the work order for construction of multi-storeyed residential buildings in Sector 66-A, Mohali, at an estimated cost of Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 9 ₹165 Crores was issued to M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Gurgaon on 5.10.2012. When the aforesaid Company started the construction work the problem of excess water in the soil was found on the project site and the said problem was to be rectified by the process of dewatering of soil because the construction work included the facilities of car parking etc. which were to be provided in the basement and for that purpose dewatering of the soil was very much important. Because of the high underground water table at the construction site, the project site was to be dewatered in order to make the site good for execution of the construction work. It took much time than usually encountered and anticipated for dewatering of underground water table. Therefore, extra ordinary efforts were put in order to keep the site free of underground water before starting construction work. The said work relating to dewatering of soil was started on 15.10.2012 and the whole process was culminated on 3.12.2013. Dewatering of soil took 14 months for its completion which caused delay in the construction work to adhere to the timeline and, as such, possession could not be given within stipulated period of 30 months of issuing allotment letter dated 27.9.2013. Various bills have been annexed on record to indicate the same. Apart from the delay which was caused in carrying out the process of dewatering of soil, the delay in the completion of the construction work is also attributable to the deficiency in supply of basic construction material i.e. sand and bajri. The said materials are extracted after mining and the process of mining is regulated by the statutory laws. There was a ban imposed upon mining in the Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 10 State of Punjab due to non-issuance of environmental clearances by the Central Government. The ban on mining was imposed in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and due to the ban in the State of Punjab scarcity of the availability of construction material was caused and due to the non- availability of basic construction material, the pace of the construction was hampered. The said ban had a great impact on all private and public sector development works. In addition to this, the delay is also attributable to heavy rain in the year 2013-14 in Chandigarh and many parts of Punjab and due to which the construction was delayed and as a natural consequent it also hampered the pace of construction. The delay is also attributable to the nationwide transport strike against the exorbitant price rising of diesel and in third party insurance premium, which continued over a span of 6-8 weeks and resulted in the delay in the construction work. The delay caused is beyond the circumstances under the control of the opposite parties and is neither intentional nor deliberate. The same is caused because of the above said exigencies and is not to be counted towards the period of 30 months, as mentioned in the allotment letter. This complaint is an afterthought and has been filed in order to abuse the process of law. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and as such, he is not entitled to any relief/compensation. The present complaint has been filed for ill- motivated reasons in order to tarnish the long standing goodwill of the opposite parties, which has been established as a result of their Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 11 pro-customer oriented approach while offering the services to the customers. The present complaint is mala fide and devoid of established principles of law and is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, purchase of the flat/apartment in question, execution/issuance of allotment letter/Agreement and the payments made by the complainant in the manner stated in the complaint have been admitted. It is also admitted that as per clause 2.24 of the Agreement the possession was to be delivered on or before 11.11.2016. Some of the averments have been admitted and some of the averments have been denied. It has been averred that the delay is due to the problems mentioned in the preliminary objections and the service tax has been charged as per the provisions of the Act. The complainant is only entitled to compensation which the opposite parties are already paying to him from time to time. Denying any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Evidence of the Parties:
4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.C-A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16.
On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit of their General Manager, Shri H.B. Garg, as Ex.OP-A along with documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/4, Ex.OP/4A to Ex.OP/4F, Ex.OP/5, Ex.OP/5A to Ex.OP/5R, copy of newspaper cutting dated 17.8.2012 as Mark-A, copy of newspaper cutting dated 14.12.2014 as Mark-B, copy of newspaper cutting dated 26.3.2013 as Mark-C and document Ex.OP/6.
Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 12
5. We have carefully gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them in support of those averments. We have also heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the opposite parties. Contentions of the parties:
6. The complainant, in person, argued on the same lines as mentioned in the complaint. It was submitted that he had already paid ₹76,43,000/- towards the sale consideration of the flat/apartment in question, the possession of which was to be handed over to him by the opposite parties upto 11.11.2016. However, without any justification the possession of the flat/apartment is not being delivered, which amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. It was further argued that as he is to wait for the delivery of possession of the flat/apartment, so he be suitably compensated by allowing interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount so deposited by him till the possession of the flat/apartment is delivered to him. He also asked for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him on account of non-delivery of the possession of the flat/apartment. He prayed that this complaint be allowed and the directions as prayed for in the complaint be issued to the opposite parties.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties also argued on the similar lines as mentioned in the written reply filed by the opposite parties. Relying upon the written arguments it was Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 13 further argued that the delay in delivery of possession of the flat/apartment is due to dewatering of the soil; deficiency in supply of basic construction material i.e. sand and bajri; heavy rains in the year 2013-14 in Chandigarh; and nationwide transport strike against the exorbitant price rise of diesel and in third party insurance premium. Therefore the delay caused is beyond the circumstances under the control of the opposite parties and is not to be counted towards the period of 30 months as mentioned in the allotment letter. It was further argued that as per condition No.2.24 of the Agreement the complainant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot of the area of the apartment per month on expiry of the period of 30 months upto the date of possession of the flat/apartment was to be offered and in pursuance of the same the compensation has already been paid to the complainant upto May 2017. The compensation for the period from June 2017 onwards will be paid till the date of delivery of possession of the flat/apartment to the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint, efforts were made by the opposite parties that the matter is amicably settled or resolved. In fact, the complainant has chosen apartment No.901 in one of the building towers of the opposite parties; however, somehow the settlement could not materialize. It was further argued that the opposite parties are well within their rights to charge service tax from the complainant in view of the amendment in Rule 2-A of Service Tax (Determination of Valuation) Rules, 2006, vide Finance Act, 2017, which has been implemented with retrospective effect Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 14 from 1.7.2010. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. Consideration of Contentions:
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
9. Admittedly the complainant purchased the residential unit in question from the opposite parties for a total sale consideration of ₹70,96,500/-, vide allotment letter/Agreement dated 12.5.2014, Ex.C-3 and paid the amount of ₹76,43,000/-, in the manner stated in the complaint. As per clause 2.24 of the Allotment letter/Agreement dated 12.5.2014, Ex.C-3, the possession of the fully constructed flat/apartment was to be delivered to the complainant within 30 months of the date of allotment i.e. upto 11.11.2016 and in case possession of the residential apartment is not offered to the allottee within a period of 30 months or extended period as stated above, the allottee shall be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot of the area of the residential apartment per month. However, till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 19.6.2017 the possession of the flat/apartment, complete in all respects, has not been delivered to the complainant in-spite of payment of more than the agreed price of the apartment/flat in question. According to the opposite parties this delay is not intentional or deliberate but due to the force majeure circumstances, which are beyond the control of the opposite parties and as per clause 2.24 of the allotment letter/agreement, Ex.C-3, the complainant is being paid the penalty Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 15 at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot per month of the super area of the flat/apartment. In view of this, the only question to be determined in this case is, whether the delay has been caused due to the circumstances alleged by the opposite parties and the same are beyond their control being force majeure circumstances?
10. The reasons for the delay in delivery of possession given by the opposite parties in their reply and written arguments are that the same has been caused due to dewatering of the soil; deficiency in supply of basic construction material i.e. sand and bajri; heavy rains in the year 2013-14 in Chandigarh; and nationwide transport strike against the exorbitant price rise of diesel and in third party insurance premium. So far as the dewatering of the soil is concerned, no specific and cogent evidence has been brought on record by the opposite parties from which it can be inferred that dewatering was such a big problem. Otherwise also it is a common knowledge that in the State of Punjab the water level is already very low. The question of dewatering does not arise. No evidence has been led on record regarding the same except the bills Ex.OP-4 alleging that the payments were made to the construction company. So far as the deficiency in supply of basic construction material i.e. sand and bajri; heavy rains in the year 2013-14 in Chandigarh; and nationwide transport strike are concerned, these cannot be termed as force majeure circumstances. The word "force majeure" has been defined in Concise Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyar as "irresistible force or compulsion; circumstance beyond one's control". It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1285 (M/s Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 16 Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. M/s Shamji Kalidas and Co.) that force majeure means act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earthquake, tide, storm, tidal wave, flood, lightning, explosion, fire and any other happening which the lessee would not reasonably prevent or control.
11. To take refuge under the force majeure circumstances, it was incumbent on the part of the opposite parties to prove that the alleged circumstances were beyond their control. There may be the reasons, as stated above, but the opposite parties were bound to fulfil their commitment under the Agreement for developing the Project and delivering the possession of the flat/apartment to the complainant within the agreed time. These were the circumstances, which could have been foreseen and should have been kept in mind while agreeing upon the terms and conditions so mentioned in the Agreement. If these are to be taken as an excuse to wriggle out of the condition so imposed in the Agreement, then in every case such a plea would be taken as an excuse for performing their part of the contract by the Developers. They had been collecting huge amounts from the customers for the development of the Project and we wonder where that amount had been going. They are not to play the game at the cost of others. When they insist upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, they are to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the Agreement. Thus, the delay in delivering the possession of the flat/apartment within the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 17
12. It stands proved that the opposite parties failed to hand over the possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, without any sufficient reason. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties, in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of building the plots/flats, as mentioned in Section 9 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the "PAPRA"). The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for delivery of the possession of the flat/apartment. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In such circumstances, ever increasing cost of construction and the damages for loss of opportunities caused which resulted in injury to the complainant, are also required to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation. In addition to that he is also entitled to the compensation for the harassment, mental agony and wasting of time and money in litigation for redressal of grievance suffered by him on account of the betrayal by the opposite parties in shattering his hope of getting the flat by waiting for all this period. In these circumstances, the complainant is held entitled to delivery of possession of the flat/apartment, in question, along with penalty, as per clause 2.24 of the allotment letter/agreement i.e. at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot of the area of Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 18 the residential apartment per month. The area of the apartment is 2490 square feet. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to ₹24,900/- per month from 11.11.2016 till the date of delivery of actual possession of the flat/apartment in question, complete in all respects. In view of this the complainant is not entitled to receive any interest on the amount deposited by him for the delayed period, more particularly, when he himself agreed the said terms and conditions of the allotment letter/agreement, Ex.C-3.
13. So far as the payment of service tax is concerned, we are of the view that the same has been rightly charged by the opposite parties because it has been specifically mentioned in the Allotment Letter/Agreement Ex.C-3 that the payments under different heads are payable along with service tax as applicable from time to time and the complainant put his signatures on the same. However, the same was not kept by the opposite parties with them and deposited the same with the Government as per Rules.
14. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to hand over physical and legal possession of the flat/apartment, in question, complete in all respects, along with all promised amenities/facilities and Completion Certificate and to get execute the sale deed/conveyance deed on the payment of the charges directly by the complainant to the Registering Authority concerned;Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2017 19
ii) to pay penalty at the rate of ₹10/- per square foot of the area of the residential apartment per month for the delay in delivering the possession of the flat, in question, as per Clause 2.24 of the allotment letter/agreement, Ex.C-3 i.e. i.e. ₹24,900/- per month with effect from 11.11.2016 till the date of delivery of possession of flat/apartment in question;
iii) to pay ₹75,000/- as lump sum amount of compensation and litigation expenses.
15. The opposite parties shall comply with this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the same, failing which the amount of ₹75,000/- awarded on account of compensation and litigation expenses shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization thereof.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER December 04, 2017 Bansal