State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarvesh Ramakrishnan vs G.D.A. on 26 April, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/136/2018 ( Date of Filing : 09 Apr 2018 ) 1. Sarvesh Ramakrishnan 33D Navyug Adarsh ApartmentsVikaspuri Nes Delhi 110018 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. G.D.A. Through its Vice Chairman Near Old Bus Stand Ghaziabad U.P. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 26 Apr 2022 Final Order / Judgement REERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Complaint no.136 of 2018 Sarvesh Ramakrishnan, 33-D, Navyug Adarsh Apartments, Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 110018 .... Complainant. Versus Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Vice-Chairman, near Old Bus Stand, Ghaziabad, UP State Bank of India, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana. .... Opposite parties. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President. 2- Hon'ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member. Sri V. Ramakrishnan father of the complainant. Sri Piyush Mani Tripthi, Advocate for OP no.1. None appeared for the OP no.2. Date 30.5.2022 JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief facts of the complaint case are that, that the complainant had applied for and was allotted the captioned 2BHK Type B flat under the Madhuban Bapudham Flats Scheme Of Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called "GDA") in 2012. As per the scheme brochure of the GDA, first table on page 15 , the cost of the flat was stated as Rs.36 lakhs/- however GDA has extracted a total sum of Rs.4,161,600/- from the complainant in gross violation of the claim that the total cost of the flat was only Rs.36 lakhs. The extra amount of Rs.5,61,600/- has been charged in the name of interest during the stage of construction, which is unjustified as GDA have been paid stage by stage cost of construction/cost incurred on the flat by GDA at each stage of construction from 2012 (the first instalment date) onwards till January 2016 when the last instalment became due as per the schedule of GDA. Thus the GDA has made wrongful gain of Rs.561,600/- by making the complainant part with Rs.4,161,600/- for the flat while misrepresenting that the cost of the flat was only Rs.36 lakhs. This has been done indirectly using the threat of dispossession of the flat/ cancellation of the allotment of the flat, and amounts to arm twisting of the consumer to extract some money which the seller was not entitled to. The extra amount of Rs.561,600/has been taken from the complainant in the name of interest on the cost of the flat, whereas he has never defaulted in payment of the due instalments at any stages of construction of the flat as detailed in the payment schedule of GDA. There was no cause for the levy of interest on complainant by GDA as the complainant has paid the cost of construction incurred by GDA at each stage. The recovery of interest amounts to blatant extortion by GDA.
The GDA has collected interest without justification. They should refund it or clarify as to the justifiable amount or principal on which they have charged or collected interest. The complainant has been paying the costs incurred by GDA on the flat as per schedule of GDA without default since there was no amount due from the complainant at any stage, the principal on which GDA has collected interest is zero. If GDA has collected interest on zero principal, it implies that the rate of interest charged by GDA is infinite. The complainant has written to GDA asking them to clarify on their rationale for collection of interest but no reply has been received from them. In the absence of any clarification by GDA, it appears that the complainant's submission that the interest collected by them is at infinite rate of interest is justified. It appears that GDA has charged interest on the total cost of the flat (and not any instalment or project cost incurred from time to time) right from the date of allotment and this has unjustifiably added to the cost to be paid by the allottee. For example, in instalment - 1 payable on 31 March 2013, besides the estimated expenditure presumably incurred by GDA till that stage, they have included interest on the total cost of the flat (Rs.36 lakhs) for three months, as if the entire cost of the flat was payable upfront even before construction began. Similarly, in instalment - 2 payable on 30 June 2013, they have included interest on total cost of flat less cost already recovered. This is contrary to the GDA statement in their Registration Booklet for the scheme that the cost of the flat was Rs.36 lakhs only. Further, in their booklet, nowhere it is stated that the total cost of the flat was payable upfront. In fact, there is a provision that in case of upfront payment of the entire cost of flat, the allottee is eligible for a discount of 5% of the total cost of the flat. As a corollary , it would mean that for allottee not opting for upfront payment, the flat cost would be payable in instalments. In other projects by government and private enterprises, the payment called for from an allottee/ purchaser/consumer is the proportionate expenditure incurred up to that stage of the flat allotted to him. GDA, however, as if to aggrandise, expects the allottees to pay interest even on expenditure yet to be incurred by them and on instalments and not yet due from the allottee. This is outrageous to say that the least. The complainant specifically draws attention of this Hon'ble Commission as to how can GDA justify charging of interest on interest not incurred amount for which no demand has been raised on the allottee.
And that too when there has been no default in payment by the allottee/complainant.
The GDA in their Scheme Booklet has set out many conditions for the allottees, such as in case of non-payment with penal interest by the allottee, the allotment can be cancelled without notice.
There will be no refund of registration amount before lottery under any circumstances.
10% of the recession amount will be deducted if allottee opted for cancellation/surrender within six months of allotment, provided there is no violation of conditions.
25% of the registration amount will be deducted if allottee opted for cancellation/surrender in case of default in any of the terms and conditions.
10% of the cost of the flat will be deducted in case of surrender after six months of allotment.
If possession is not taken on due date, Rs.1200 per month shall be charged (with escalation of 10% every year).
Stringent as these conditions are imposed on allottees by GDA, failing which ssevere financial penalties are to be borne by the allottees, it appears that GDA despite being followed upon regularly by the complainant are yet to complete/deliver the allotted flat to him. In fact, the complainant has been informed orally that taking recourse to another clause in their booklet, namely, para - 1, page 12 which states that difference between the estimated cost and final cost will be payable at the time of possession/execution of lease deed, they propose to call for further payment of ₹ 360,000/from the complainant before handing over possession of the flat, on account of escalation in the cost. The above clause only means that greater the lethargy/inefficiency of GDA, the greater will be the burden on the allottees.
It is submitted that GDA appears to have with these demonic conditions placed the entire burden of the scheme, namely, its execution and completion on the allottee/ complainant rather than themselves, and that they on their part can get away with misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, lethargy and inefficiency, consequences of which failing will have to be borne by the allottee, financially, and in terms of deprivation of the asset paid for by the allottee/ complainant. If GDA, takes protection behind the above and other stringent conditions detailed in their scheme, on the principle of natural justice, the same stringent conditions that they impose on the allottee will apply to them also in so far as their failing under the scheme are concerned. In this context their failings are listed below:
Their recovery of interest amounting Rs.561,600/- along with the cost of construction is unjustified as there was no default on the part of the complainant in payment of the cost of construction at each stage as per GDA schedule.
Despite my paying the last instalment of cost of the flat in January 2016, GDA has not delivered the allotted flat to the complainant so for.
Their proposed additional demand of Rs.360,000/- for the flat is not justified as the escalated cost is due to the lethargy and inefficiency and due to their non-completion of the project in time for which they have no right to impose the burden on the allottee/ complainant.
Regarding the above matter, the complainant has written in detail a letter dated 19 May 2017 to GDA (to be replied within a notice period of 30 days from the date) followed by reminders dated 30 June 2017 and 6 February 2018. In response, GDA has written a letter dated 9 March 2018 (received on 18 March 2018) which does not address any of the points raised by the complainant but states that a final estimate of the cost of the flat is pending at their end after which they will inform regarding handing over possession of flat. The complainant has in reply written to GDA to clarify on all the points raised by the complainant in earlier letters but with no response from GDA so far.
Therefore it is prayed from this Hon'ble commission as follows: -
The opposite party no 1 /GDA be directed to deliver the possession of the flat as early as possible or refund the deposited amount of Rs.36 lakhs to the complainant.
The opposite party no.1 GDA be directed to pay Rs.970,909/- being the excess amount of Rs.561,000 (collected by GDA as interest) and interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum.
The opposite party no 1 /GDA be directed to pay Rs.965,900/- towards cost of delay in delivery of the flat at a rate of 15% per annum. This amount will however increase if GDA further delays delivery of the flat.
The opposite party no 1 /GDA be directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs as litigation costs and Rs.1 lakh towards the mental agony caused to the complainant.
The interest accruing in light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, as the Hon'ble commission may deem fit and proper.
Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the complainant.
The opposite party appeared and submitted his written statement. The brief facts of the written statement are that, that the instant complaint case filed by the complainant is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble commission as the subject matter in dispute agitated by the complainant relates to the fixation of the cost of the property which is beyond the jurisdiction of This Hon'ble Commission. The complainant in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and without any cause instituted this case before the original Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission claiming flimsy and arbitrary relief, no deficiency in service is committed by the answering opposite party in this matter and the price is claimed as per the letter of allotment. The complainant was well aware of the estimated cost and the mode of payment of the cost. However with malafide intention and with ulterior motive this case is instituted before this Hon'ble Commission to extract illegal money from the answering opposite party. The complaint case is not properly identified and verified before this Hon'ble Commission as the allottee of the answering opposite party did not institute the case rather attorneys signed and instituted this case before this Hon'ble commission as such the complaint case is liable to be dismissed. The person alleged to be the attorney of the answering opposite party is not a consumer of the answering opposite party and did not fulfil the ingredients of consumerism as defined under the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the power of attorney holder cannot maintain the case before this Hon'ble Commission neither the valid Power of Attorney supplied to the answering opposite party along with the complainant case as such the answering opposite party reserves their rights to submit appropriate reply as and when the power of attorney deed is supplied to them.
It is pertinent to mention here that complainant was well aware of the fact that the cost of the unit is tentative and shall be revised, the agreed terms and conditions are read and understood by the complainant, thereafter the instalments were deposited. However when the answering opposite party issued a letter dated 9 March 2018 communicating the complainant that the final costing is in process, with ulterior motives in order to get the unit at the self determined price this case is instituted before this Hon'ble Commission. The answering party respectfully submit that the complainant at any stage can apply to the authority as per the agreed terms and conditions and surrender the allotment and get his refund as per rules. It is vehemently denied by the authority that any interest is to be paid by them on the deposited amount, rather the amount deposited can be refunded after deduction in view of the agreed terms and conditions. No cause of action accrued to the complainant in filing this complaint case, since the opposite parties never declined possession neither declined to refund the amount deposited as per agreed terms and conditions In fact the letter dated 9 March 2018 is issued communicating the complainant that the final costing is in process, learning this fact complainant with malafide intention invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission claiming quashing of the agreed costing and forthwith claiming refund in contravention of the agreed terms and conditions. This Hon'ble commission lacks jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the complaint case as a matter involved in this case is intended to be put to use for the commercial purpose which is specifically excluded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
No deficiency in service is committed by the opposite party in this complaint case, the case is based on wrong fact. The matter in dispute is not a consumer dispute and the case being vexatious requires to be dismissed with cost. The cost of the flat is a tentative cost and no extra amount is claimed from the complainant, further the fixation of cost and matter relates to pricing dispute as is specifically debarred from the consumer jurisdiction. The answering opposite party acted strictly in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions, complainant tendered undertaking to the authority that the terms of the scheme are binding on him, further it is well within the knowledge of the complainant by means of letter dated 31st December 2012 that the tentative cost of the flat is Rs.36 lakhs and the instalments are to be paid along with interest. No dispute was made by the complainant in paying these agreed instalments along with interest, however when the final costing is being carried out by the answering opposite party this case is instituted demanding for the refund of the amount paid to the authority in contravention of the terms and conditions. Costing is the prerogative of the authority and is determined taking into various factors into consideration, the attempt of the complainant is to avoid the payment of the cost. It also transpires from the case that the complainant desires the refund in contravention of the agreed terms and conditions. The methodology and calibration adopted by the complainant is self invented and did not apply, nor is recognised under any law. The fixation of cost is not a matter which can be adjudicated before the summary procedure of this Hon'ble commission. The complainant did not place any statutory regulation or provisions of law supporting the ideology stated in the determination of the cost. The answering opposite party acted in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions, however it was always open to the complainant to rescind from the project, rather the complainant started depositing instalment knowingly that the interest is also a component of the principal, that's at this juncture the complainant cannot wriggle out from the agreement, the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation cannot be looked into by this Hon'ble Commission in summary proceedings.
19-It is submitted that no amount is to be refunded by the answering opposite party to the complainant, the answering opposite party already issued a letter dated 9 March 2018 to the complainant and it is the complainant who is required to pay the final cost and take the possession. However, it is evident that the complainant is not ready to deposit the final cost, thus as per the agreed terms and conditions it is always open to the complainant to approach the answering opposite party for surrendering his allotment and apply for refund as per rules. No cause of action accrued to the complainant to institute this complaint case. The prayer clause of the complaint is not admitted as the case is not maintainable and there is no agreement or terms and conditions for payment of any interest on the deposited amount. Hon'ble NCDRC in the case of Kartar Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in I (2008) CPJ 93 (NC) has held :
"it is by now settled law that Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of 'pricing', it also does not amount to a 'consumer dispute' as per law Laid down by This Commission in the Case of National Consumer Awareness Group (Regd.) Vs. The Housing Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board (supra): Gujarat Housing Board Vs Datania Amritlal Phulchand & Ors. III(1993) CPJ 351 (NC): and most other judgment of this commission.
The answering opposite party submits that the Hon'ble NCDRC as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial pronouncements held that the dispute relating to pricing is not adjudicable before the consumer forum. Hence it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may graciously be pleased to dismiss the complaint case being not maintainable.
We have heard the father of the complainant Mr. V. Ramakrishnan in person and the counsel of the opposite party Mr. Piyush Mani Tripathi. We perused the pleadings, evidence and documents on record.
We have seen the allotment letter cum payment schedule of the GDA dated 31.12.2012 in which the schedule of payment of instalments has been given. In this schedule there is column of due date of payment, amount in rupees and interest at a rate of 12% and lastly total instalment amount. So in this interest has already been included in the payment of instalments. In this letter it is also written that if the amounts payable to GDA are not paid within the prescribed time limit, penal interest at the rate of 15% per month shall be payable along with the payable amounts. If the payment is not made within three months from due date along with penal interest if any, the allotment shall be treated cancelled without notice. It is also written that grace period of one month shall be given for payment of reservation amount/instalment after the due date however if any previous amount of instalment stands unpaid on the due date, no grace period will be admissible on the current instalment in case payment made after the grace period, penal interest shall be payable from the original due date of payment. There are 12 instalments in toto which was to be paid according their due date of payment by the allottee. It is said by the complainant that he has already paid the full amount.
The complainant stated that he has not given possession till now by the opposite party. The counsel for the opposite party attracted our attention towards various conditions of the brochure in which nothing has been written about the time of delivery of possession. It means that the opposite party may take many decades to complete the project and thereafter he may invite the great grandson of the allottee to take possession ! If in any project no date of delivery of possession has been given, whether it means in finite time? In such cases the Court observes reasonable time to deliver the possession to a allottee. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3533-3534 OF 2017 M/S. FORTUNE INFRASTRUCTURE (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. HICON INFRASTRUCTURE) & ANR. VS TREVOR D'LIMA & ORS. ( Judgement March 12 , 2018 ) has held:
"15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no development of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/ complainants is entitled to ?"
In the above-mentioned case Hon'ble Supreme Court also held regarding payment of compensation or quantum of compensation as follows:
"18. This Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, has observed that there is no fixed formula for fixing damages in the following manner:
'8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus, the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/ Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. ... We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer." (emphasis supplied) Therefore one has to become clear that in such cases where no time of delivery of possession of the flat/plot has been mentioned in the allotment order on the brochure, a reasonable period of three years shall be taken into account. Now we see the present case in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment (supra). In the present case allotment letter has been issued on 31 December 2012. A letter has been issued by Undersecretary dated March 9, 2018 in which it has been written that the work of the construction of the flats has been completed but the final cost of construction is yet to be decided therefore after getting the final cost of the flat you will be informed to take the possession of the said flat. This reply has been given to the complainant's letter which he sent to the GDA. Therefore it is clear that till 09 March 2018 no offer was given to take possession of the flat in question.
The opposite party has stated in his affidavit filed in support of the evidence that as per condition 15 of the brochure, the possession of the flat shall be provided after the completion of the construction and development of the scheme and after the deposit of the final cost of the unit and after the execution of lease deed. The last instalment of estimated cost of the flat was to be deposited till 31st December 2015. The opposite party has further stated that the opposite party offered possession of the allotted flat by means of the letter dated 07.01.2019 and demanded an amount of ₹ 856,969/-. Again a letter dated 20.06.2019 has been issued to the complainant by means of which a demand of ₹990,000/- was made. We have seen a letter of the opposite party sent to the complainant dated 07.01.2019 in which it has been specifically written that you are hereby informed that the final cost of the said flat has been fixed at ₹ 3,960,000/- so you are required to deposit the difference amount of ₹350,000/-, the lease rent ₹55,202/- parking charges ₹250,000/- GST ₹83,137/- and service tax ₹108,630/- the complainant was also ask to withdraw his case filed before the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission. Again one letter dated 29.06.2019 has been sent to the complainant asking him to deposit ₹ 990,000/- which is payable by 31.07.2019. Why did this amount asked to deposit one month later from the date of this letter? No calculation chart of this amount has been filed by the opposite party.
We have seen the payment schedule dated 31.12.2012 of the opposite party in which ₹36 lakhs has been divided in 13 instalments to be paid from 31.01.2013 to 31.12.2015 and in this schedule interest at a rate of 12% has been added in each instalments. So it is clear that till 31st December 2015 the interest has already been paid with the instalments. The complainant has submitted his application form for the allotment of a flat which has been received by the office of the opposite party on 19.09.2012 and thereafter allotment letter had issued on 31.12.2012. So one thing is crystal clear that even if no date of providing delivery of the said flat has been given, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment (supra) the possession of the flat was to be given by 31.12.2015. It the possession has not been given on the said date, it is clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party and he cannot charge a single penny towards interest after this cut off date.
Before discussing further, we have to see the basic object of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Consumer Protection Act, came into existence and implemented in 1986, provides Consumer Rights to prevent consumers from fraud or specified unfair practices. It safeguards and encourages and gives an opportunity to consumers to speak against insufficiency and flaws in goods and services. If traders, manufacturers and distributors follow any foul trade, this act protects their rights as a consumer.
This Protection Act covers entire goods and services of all sectors that are public, private, or cooperative sectors, except those exempted by the central government. The act provides a floor for a consumer where one can file their complaint against the product and the forum takes an action against the concerned supplier and compensation is granted to the consumer for the inconvenience he/she has encountered. The objectives of the consumer petition act may be summarised as -
To Provide better and all round protection to consumer.
To Provide machinery for the speedy redressal of the grievances.
To Create framework for consumers to seek redressal.
To Provide rights to consumers.
To Safeguarde rights of Consumers.
What are the rights of consumers? Let us know more about the rights of consumer. Listed below are the Rights of the Consumer:
Right to Safety- Before buying, a consumer can examine on the quality and guarantee of the goods and opt for ISI or AGMARK products.
Right to Choose- Consumer must have the right to choose from a variety and number of goods and in a competitive price Right to be informed- The buyers must be provided with complete information with all the necessary and adequate details of the product, make her/him act wise, and change the buying decision.
Right to Consumer Education- The consumer must be aware of his/her rights and avoid exploitation.
Right to be heard- The consumer will get due attention to express their grievances at a suitable platform.
Right to seek compensation- The consumer has the right to seek or ask for redressal against unfair and inhumane practices or exploitation of the consumer.
So it is clear that the Consumer Protection Act has been passed to safeguard the interest of the consumers. Now we come to the facts of the present case. Application number ICIW15578 has been filed by the complainant on 19 September 2012 as is evident from the documents filed by the opposite party-1. This is for the allotment of 2 BHK -Type B flat. Thereafter allotment order has been issued and allotment letter cum payment schedule has also been issued on 31 December 2012 . As we have seen earlier that the cut of date for delivery of possession was 31 December 2015 or we may say 1 January 2016. The reasonable period has been held three years in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra). Whether delivery of possession has been offered on that date? Annexure-3 in the letter issued by GDA on 9 March 2018 to the complainant in which it has been clearly specified that the work of fixation of final cost of the said flat is yet to be done hence after the finalisation of final cost, you will be informed the date of giving delivery of possession. In letter dated 29 June 2019 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, is stated that you are hereby required to deposit the balance amount of the flat within 15 days and after getting the formalities completed, take delivery of possession of the flat. Whether it is a letter for delivery of possession? There is not a single word regarding completion certificate, occupancy certificate, NOC from pollution department, NOC from civil aviation Department and NOC from fire department. Without these, offer of giving possession is no offer in the eye of law.
In the case of Faqir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil appeal no.3302 of 2005, judgment dated 10.06.2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a prayer for completion certificate and C&D Forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C&D Forms. If it is not issued, the builder owes a duty to make necessary application and obtain it. If it is wrongly withheld, he may have to approach the appropriate court or other forum to secure it. If it is justifiably withheld or refused, necessarily the builder will have to do whatever is required to be done to bring the building in consonance with the sanctioned plan so that the municipal authorities can inspect and issue the completion certificate and also assess the property to tax. If the builder fails to do so, he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss/damage.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., civil appeal no.5785 of 2019, with other civil appeals, judgment 11.01.2021, has held where the development makes an alternate offer of allotment of apartment, the allottees are however not bound to accept the same because of inordinate delay in completing the construction of the towers or units were allotted to them and if the Occupation Certificate is not available even as on date, clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
Now it is clear that the reasonable period for handing over the possession of the flat/plot is three years from the date of allotment order and also if the occupancy certificate has not been obtained, offering delivery of possession is deficiency of service. Also the completion certificate is of utmost importance. In the present case the above mentioned certificates have not been produced before this court. In addition to it there is no NOC of fire department, civil aviation Department and pollution department. Therefore it will be said that the said flat is not ready for the delivery of possession in the absence of these certificates.
In the present case, additional amount has been demanded on 7 January 2019 i.e. after 41 months from the date of proposed delivery of possession. But the GDA was sleeping all the way and it has been taken as granted that whenever they want, they will hand over the possession. It is not so. The complainant has specifically said that the opposite party has collected ₹4,161,600/- even during the construction stage of the project which includes ₹5,61,600/-as interest. When the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the flat on 01.1.2016 they are not entitled to claim any interest on the amount of ₹39 lakhs.
Now some case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC are to be discussed in this light.
In R. V. Prasannakumaar v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC on Line SC 224, under the terms of the ABA, possession of the flats was to be handed over to the buyers on 31 January 2014. However, the developer received an occupation certificate only on 10 February 2016 and it was thereafter from May 2016 that the developer started issuing letters offering possession. Based on this, the NCDRC awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The developer had pleaded that since the agreement provided compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month for delayed possession, the purchasers were not entitled to anything in addition. Dealing with the submission, this Court observed:
"9. We are in agreement with the view of the NCDRC that the rate which has been stipulated by the developer, of compensation at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft. per month does not provide just or reasonable recompense to a flat buyer who has invested money and has not been handed over possession as on the stipulated date of 31 January 2014. To take a simple illustration, a flat buyer with an agreement of a flat measuring a 1000 sq. ft. would receive, under the agreement, not more than Rs. 3000/- per month. This in a city such as Bangalore does not provide just or adequate compensation. The jurisdiction of the NCDRC to award just compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot in the circumstances be constrained by the terms of the agreement. The agreement in its view is one sided and does not provide sufficient recompense to the flat purchasers."
The Court observed that there was a delay of two years and hence the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent was reasonable and justified.
In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, there was a delay of almost two years in obtaining an occupancy certificate after the date stipulated in the ABA. As a consequence, there was a failure to provide possession of the flat to the purchaser within a reasonable period. This Court dwelt on the terms of the ABA under which the builder was entitled to charge interest at 18 per cent per annum for the delay in payment of instalments by the purchaser. On the other hand, the failure to provide possession on the part of the developer was subject to a grace period of twelve months followed by a termination notice of ninety days and a further period of ninety days to the developer to effect a refund. Adverting to these clauses, the court noted:
"6.4. A perusal of the apartment buyer's agreement dated 8-5- 2012 reveals stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For instance, Clause 6.4(ii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to charge interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of instalments from the respondent flat purchaser. Clause 6.4(iii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the agreement, if any instalment remains in arrears for more than 30 days. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5 of the agreement, if the appellant builder fails to deliver possession of the apartment within the stipulated period, the respondent flat purchaser has to wait for a period of 12 months after the end of the grace period, before serving a termination notice of 90 days on the appellant builder, and even thereafter, the appellant builder gets 90 days to refund only the actual instalment paid by the respondent flat purchaser, after adjusting the taxes paid, interest and penalty on delayed payments. In case of any delay thereafter, the appellant builder is liable to pay interest @9% p.a. only. Another instance is Clause 23.4 of the agreement which entitles the appellant builder to serve a termination notice upon the respondent flat purchaser for breach of any contractual obligation. If the respondent flat purchaser fails to rectify the default within 30 days of the termination notice, then the agreement automatically stands cancelled, and the appellant builder has the right to forfeit the entire amount of earnest money towards liquidated damages. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5(v) of the agreement, if the respondent flat purchaser fails to exercise his right of termination within the time limit provided in Clause 11.5, then he shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement thereafter, and shall be bound by the provisions of the agreement."
Hon'ble Justice Indu Malhotra speaking for the Court noted:
"6.8. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the agreement dated 8-5-2012 are ex facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the builder." The Court observed that in these circumstances, the flat purchasers could not be compelled to obtain possession which was offered almost two years after the grace period under the agreement had expired. Hence, the NCDRC was held to have correctly awarded interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.
The decision of this Court in Dhanda Case, 2019 SCC On Line SC 689 has been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the developer as elucidating the principle that where a flat buyers agreement stipulates a consequence for delayed possession, exceptional and strong reasons must be established before the forum constituted under the Act of 1986 awards compensation in addition to what has been contractually agreed. In Dhanda's case, the SCDRC issued a direction for handing over physical possession of the residential unit to the complainant and for execution of a sale deed. In addition, compensation was awarded by way of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from twelve months after the stipulated date under the agreement. In an appeal by the developer, the NCDRC directed that the rate of interest for a house building loan for the corresponding period in a scheduled nationalised bank would be appropriate and if a floating rate of interest was prescribed, the higher rate of interest should be taken for the computation. A sum of Rs.1 lac per annum from the date for handing over possession to the actual date of possession was regarded as appropriate in the facts of the case. In that case under the terms of the buyer's agreements, possession was to be delivered within twenty-four months of the execution of the agreement i.e. 10 February 2013 - failing which the developer was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per square foot per month for the delay. The developer contended that construction activities were delayed as a result of an injunction granted by this Court over a period of eight months and consequently sought an extension of the period for handing over possession by one year. Alternatively, the developer offered to refund the money deposited with interest at 9 per cent per annum. Construction of 258 independent floors was completed while about 1,500 units were nearing completion. In two sets of Civil Appeals which came up before this Court earlier, agreed terms were arrived at providing for the award of interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till refund. While considering the order of the NCDRC, this Court observed:
"16. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer's agreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation at more than the agreed rate."
Now the interest may be 6% to 10% in favour of the allottees if they have not been given possession of the flat/plot within promised or within a reasonable time. The complainant has deposited the entire agreed cost of the flat before June 2009. Now it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party to deliver the possession within stipulated time but they failed to do so.
In the case of PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC). These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. &Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.
The Hon'ble NCDRC held that:
"Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses.
The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble State Commission, these appeals preferred before Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Hon'ble NCDRC discussed various case laws and after hearing the parties held, "Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade practice under Section 2 (nnn) of Consumer Protection Act and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under Section 2(nnn) of Consumer Protection Act.
Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10 ( c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession.
Against this judgment, parties went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is:-
In Nalin Bhargava vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc. It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition of costs as compensation.
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised objections with regard to imposition of costs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When we say "cost", we mean costs alone and nothing else."
In the case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra [Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No(S). 1795 of 2017] judgment delivered on 25.03.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:-
"Interestingly, where the buyer is in default, the agreement stipulates that interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of default until the date of payment would be charged for a period of two months, failing which the allotment would be cancelled by deducting 5% of the entire value of the property. The agreement was evidently one sided. For a default on the part of the buyer, interest at the rate of 18% was liable to be charged. However, a default on the part of the developer in handing over possession would make him liable to pay interest only at the savings bank rate prescribed by the SBI. There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer that the agreement was one sided.
In the Case of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. Versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd (now Known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 6303 of 2019); The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:-
"24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression "service" in Section 2 (1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfillment of a contractual obligation. To uphold the contention of the developer that the flat buyer is constrained by the terms of the agreed rate irrespective of the nature or extent of delay would result in a miscarriage of justice."
"Undoubtedly, as this court held in Dhanda, courts ordinarily would hold parties down to a contractual bargain. Equally the court cannot be oblivious to the one-sided nature of ABAs which are drafted by and to protect the interest of the developer. Parliament consciously designed remedies in the CP Act 1986 to protect consumers. Where, as in the present case, there has been a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated debt, we are clearly of the view that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of its power to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is not constrained by the terms of a rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain."
These builders are just earning money from the consumers to whom they issued allotment letters and got a huge amount. They keep this amount for a long time and earn interest on it. Property dealing is that part of business where they never pay a penny to the consumers on their amounts deposited for a long-term or if they pay, they pay a meagre interest of about 5% or so but they charge 18 to 24% or more if the consumers default in depositing any instalment. It reminds us the story of "The Merchant of Venice" The Merchant of Venice is the story of a Jewish money lender Shylock who demands that an antisemitic Christian offer "a pound of flesh" as collateral against a loan. These acts of builders also remind us the age of Sahukari during ancient India and also during British Raj. Whether these builders have power to frame their own law? They put their terms and conditions in such a way that the sufferer will always be the consumer. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted for the benefits of consumers, so the courts dealing with Consumer Protection Act 1986 should come forward for their rescue. The courts are not governed by the builders but they are governed by the law, Custom and Usages. Now in the background of all the facts and also the facts of the present case, we will also discuss something more.
Now it has been very well established that the opposite party completely failed to deliver the possession of the said flat on 01.01.2016. It is deficiency of services on the part of opposite party and demanding more and more money and extending time in the garb of that no such specific clause regarding completion of the project is unfair trade practice. So in the circumstances they are not entitled to demand any amount which has been mentioned in the letter dated 07.03.2019 and 29.06.2019. They have not filed the copy of the completion/occupancy certificate and NOC from the various departments as said earlier. Keeping in view the judgment of the different Hon'ble higher courts we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs are:-
The opposite party no 1is liable to hand over the possession of unit no. 2 BHK -Type B flat in " Madhuban Bapudham Yojna "Ghaziabad, with complete finishing work, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this Complaint case and they will not charge any penny in future except the monthly maintenance charge that too after handing over the possession with completion certificate , occupancy certificate, NOC from Fire Department, NOC from Pollution Control Department, NOC from Civil Aviation department, Traffic Department and they shall also pay interest at a rate of 10% on the deposited amount to the complainants from respective dates of deposition till the date of giving actual possession of the said unit . If it is not complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on this amount.
IN ALTERNATE The opposite party is directed to refund ₹4,161,600/ to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment of this appeal with interest at a rate of 10% from the date of respective deposit of the instalments with other reliefs as mentioned in point no. 2 to 4 and if it is not paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment, the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum.
We are of the view that the complainants are entitled to get monthly damage according to the area. The area of the said unit is less than 175 m² and keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC in the case of Priyanka Mittal (supra), the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay ₹ 15,000/- per month from 01.01.2016 till the date of compliance of this order and the order shall be complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal otherwise they shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on this amount.
The complainants are entitled to get ₹ 150,000/- in view of Nalin Bhargava Case (supra) as cost.
In the relief clause of the complaint, the complainant has prayed that any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted. So keeping in view all the fraud, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed in this case, all the harassment and mental agony given to the allottee's father, being South Indian, appeared personally for the justice of his son and arguing the case at his own, we find that the complainants are also entitled to get ₹ 20 lakhs towards payment of rent of the flat, mental harassment, agony and sufferings.
No amount shall be adjusted by the opposite parties to these amounts whatsoever it may be.
The present complaint is decided accordingly.
ORDER The opposite party no.1 is directed to hand over the possession of unit no. 2 BHK-Type B flat in " Madhuban Bapudham Yojna" Ghaziabad, with complete finishing work, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this Complaint case and they will not charge any penny in future except the monthly maintenance charge that too after handing over the possession with completion certificate , occupancy certificate, NOC from Fire Department, NOC from Pollution Control Department, NOC from Civil Aviation department, Traffic Department and they shall also pay interest at a rate of 10% on the deposited amount to the complainants from respective dates of deposition till the date of giving actual possession of the said unit . If it is not complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on this amount.
IN ALTERNATE The opposite party no.1 is directed to refund ₹ 4,161,600/ to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment of this appeal with interest at a rate of 10% from the date of respective deposit of the instalments with other relief as mentioned in points no.2 to 4 of this judgment and if it is not paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment, the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum.
The opposite party no 1 is directed to pay ₹ 15,000/- per month from 01.01.2016 till the date of compliance of this order and the order shall be complied with, within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal otherwise they shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on this amount.
The opposite party no.1 is directed to pay ₹ 150,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of judgment of this complaint otherwise the opposite party no 1 shall pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum.
The opposite party no.1 is directed to pay ₹ 20 lakhs towards payment of rent of the flat, mental harassment, agony and sufferings.
No amount shall be adjusted by the opposite party to these amounts whatsoever it may be.
All the decreetal amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal, except "order given as in alternate" otherwise the opposite parties shall pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum on all the decreetal amount. If it is not paid within 60 days from the date of judgment of this appeal, the complainant shall be entitled to present Execution proceedings before this court at the cost of the opposite parties.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Rajendra Singh) (Justice Ashok Kumar) Member President Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to the Record Room. (Rajendra Singh) (Justice Ashok Kumar) Member President Jafri, PA II C-1 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] JUDICIAL MEMBER