State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bal Krishan Verma vs Premium Acres Infrastructure on 12 January, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 2016 Date of Institution 18.4.2016 Date of Decision 12.01.2017 Bal Krishan Verma S/o Sh. Kundal Lal, resident of 145, Viking, H9G 2M5, DDO Montreal, Canada through Power of Attorney holder Jaspal Verma S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Verma, resident of House No.705, Sector 56, Chandigarh. .......Complainant V E R S U S 1] M/s Premium Acre Infratech Pvt. Ltd., SCO 56-57, 3rd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. 2] M/s Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Villa No.205, TDI City, Premium Acre Court Yard, Sector 110-111, SAS Nagar (Mohali). 3] M/s Premium Acres Infratech Private Limited, (Regd. Office), 17/6, Anand Parbat, Industrial Area, Near Gali No.10, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005. 4] Parminder Singh Sehgal (Director), Premium Acres Infratech Private Limited, r/o H.No.1227, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh - 160036. Second Address :- Parminder Singh Sehgal (Director), Premium Acres Infratech Private Limited, r/o H.No.61-62, Sector 70, Mohali. 5] Sanjay Jain (Director) Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Limited, r/o House No.2235, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. ...... Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Mrs. Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4.
Sh. Sanjay Jain (Opposite Party No.5) in person.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER In brief, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Parties had launched the project of "TDI City" and the complainant was allured by the Opposite Parties, who depicted the magnanimous benefits of the said project. On believing the glorified benefit of the project of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had applied for a flat in their project vide application dated 19.03.2011 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, unit No.1701 having an approximately built up area of 1200 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 19.03.2011 (Annexure C-2). Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 21.03.2011 (Annexure C-3). According to Clause 9 of the Agreement, possession of the flat was to be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of the Agreement i.e. latest by 20.03.2013. It was further stated that the agreegate sale price of the flat, as per the Agreement, was Rs.32,54,000/- including EDC and PLC. The complainant had opted Down Payment Plan. It was further stated that the complainant made the entire full and final payment in one single installment, in cash, which was paid alongwith the application dated 19.03.2011 and the said fact was mentioned in the allotment letter and Clause 4(a) of the Buyer Agreement. The Opposite Parties for making the down payment of the entire sale consideration of the flat, gave a discount of Rs.2,72,800/- to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never intimated the status of construction work. It was further stated that when the complainant came to India in December, 2013 and visited the site, no construction work had commenced at the site. The complainant enquired regarding the delay in construction work from the Opposite Parties but they pacified him with false assurances of commencing and completing the construction work as early as possible. It was further stated that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was to be held in November, 2015 and it was her wish that all the marriage functions should be performed from the house of the complainant in India but the Opposite Parties failed to complete the construction work. The complainant made a request to the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure C-4) to allot him an alternate flat, so that he could fulfill his daughter's dream but they failed to respond to the aforesaid letter. It was further stated that when the complainant again visited the site recently, he found only a basic structure of the concerned building was standing and even the plastering work was incomplete, without any proper approach road to the said flat and without any park and amenities in the surrounding area. It was further stated that copy of certificate dated 24.02.2016 issued by the registered Architect (Annexure C-5) clearly stated that only a basic structure is standing without any plastering work or electrical or plumbing work being complete. The Opposite Parties have abandoned the construction work of the said flat and there is a wild growth of jungle around the block, in which, the flat of the complainant exists. It was further stated that despite receipt of the entire payment, the Opposite Parties failed to commence the construction work. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure C-6) to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to pay any delay charges, which is mentioned in Clause 9 of the Agreement. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, they were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act" only), was filed.
2. Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in their joint written statement, have stated that the documents annexed by the complainant as Annexures C-1 to C-4 are forged and fabricated and, therefore, the same could not be read and appreciated in the eyes of law. It was denied regarding the purchase of flat No.1701 by the complainant, after making payment of Rs.32,54,000/- in cash in one go. It was stated that the unit was never sold to the complainant and the documents produced by him are totally forged and fabricated. The replying Opposite Parties denied the receipt of the payment of Rs.32,54,000/- from the complainant in respect of the unit, in question. It was further stated that the alleged unit No.1701 is still with the replying Opposite Parties as unsold unit. An FIR was also registered against Mr.Sanjay Jain (Opposite Party No.5) and Mr.Amit Jain & others for their illegal conspiracy regarding the fraud committed by them with the replying Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant is trying to take the illegal and undue benefit by misleading and giving wrong statement before this Commission, for which, he is not at all legally entitled to any relief, as prayed for, in this complaint on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents (Annexures C-1 to C-4) and for which, the replying Opposite Parties have filed a criminal complaint against the complainant (Annexure R-6). It was further stated that the complainant is part and parcel of this alleged connivance with Opposite Party No.5 Mr.Sanjay Jain alongwith Mr.Amit Jain and others, so that the replying Opposite Parties be put to loss in terms of financial aspect. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.5 was an employee of the replying Opposite Parties, he knew about all the units/flats/villas which was unsold in their project and in order to cause loss to the replying Opposite Parties, Opposite Party No.5 sold these vacant stocks of units by making forged, fabricated, undated documents sometimes antedated documents and the perfect example of which is the documents annexed by the complainant (Annexures C-1 to C-4). It was further stated that the complainant is an Non Resident Indian and it is to be seen how he made a payment of Rs.32,54,000/- in cash at one go, whether he has declared this income before the Income Tax Authorities and other authorities like State Government, RBI etc. It was further stated that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as Mr.Sanjay Jain & Mr.Amit Jain was not authorized to issue those documents, on which, the complainant is relied upon. It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute, the property is in Mohali (Punjab) and, therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It was further stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as the date of possession is allegedly to be 20.03.2013 and, therefore, this complaint is filed on 12.04.2016 and is beyond the period of 2 years limitation. It was further stated that the complaint is also not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as the Buyer's Agreement was signed by Mr.Amit Jain, for which, he is a necessary party to be impleaded. It was admitted regarding the launching of the project. It was further stated that the unit, in question, was never sold to the complainant and, therefore, the question of handing over of possession did not arise at all. It was denied regarding receipt of letter dated 31.08.2015 and legal notice. It was denied that the complainant visited the concerned officials at the site because he has no right whatsoever to visit the place because he is not the buyer of the replying Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the alleged documents (Annexures C-1 to C-4) are forged and fabricated documents, therefore, the question of levying EDC, absence of approach road, parks and street light is out of question qua the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the replying Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
3. Opposite Party No.5 in his short reply, admitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.32,54,000/- with Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. It was stated that Sh. Parminder Singh Sehgal & Smt. Parminder Kaur Sehgal, alleged Directors - Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. have not only defrauded the replying Opposite Party but also committed criminal breach of trust and several other frauds with the Company and, as such, he lodged an FIR (Annexure OP-5/1) against them and also attached copy of CFSL report (Annexure OP-5/2). It was further stated that due to the disputes between the Directors of the Company, the complainant should not be made to suffer. It was further stated that another FIR dated 13.04.2016 was registered against the captioned persons for cheating, fraud and breach of trust done by Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant C/o B.Aggarwal and Co. in criminal conspiracy, with Mr.Parminder Singh Sehgal and his wife Smt. Parminder Kaur Sehgal and other associates (Annexure OP-5/5). It was further stated that Mrs. & Mr. P.S.Sehgal have left no stone unturned to harass all the allottees of the project of the Company by fabricating and manipulating the entire account statements of the allottees just to extort maximum money from the allottees. It was further stated that the letters have been issued by the Company on the instructions of Mr.P.S.Sehgal and the replying Opposite Party has been fraudulently disassociated by Mr.P.S.Sehgal since June, 2014 and hence the replying Opposite Party has not been dealing with the affairs of the Company since June, 2014. However, the dispute regarding the ownership and Directorship of the Company is pending before the Hon'ble Company Law Board, New Delhi. Hence, the replying Opposite Party could not be held liable for any kind of grievance of the complainant arising after June, 2014. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of replying Opposite Party, nor he indulged into unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua Opposite Party No.5.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and Opposite Party No.5 in person, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
7. The first question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint, or not. No doubt, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, submitted that the property, in question, is in Punjab, so, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It is pertinent to note that Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-3) was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh. Not only this, the allotment letter (Annexure C-2) was issued from the Chandigarh office of the Company, as the Chandigarh address of the Company clearly shows on the aforesaid document. As such, a part of cause of action, accrued to the complainant, at Chandigarh. Accordingly, this Commission at Chandigarh, in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, has territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
8. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 stated that the complaint is barred by limitation, as the date of possession is allegedly to be 20.03.2013 and, therefore, this complaint is filed on 12.04.2016 is beyond the period of 2 years limitation. In the present case, the Company (Opposite Parties No.1 to 4) failed to offer/deliver possession of the unit to the complainants, after receipt of the huge amount from them in one go, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in their favour, in view of principle of law laid down, in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by time. The submission of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
9. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Mr.Amit Jain, who has signed the Buyer's Agreement. It may be stated here that the complainant booked the unit of M/s Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and paid the huge amount in respect of the unit, in one go and he did not know who is Mr. Amit Jain. If the aforesaid official/any other official received the amount of the unit from the complainant and at the time of execution of the Buyer Agreement signed the same, he being an employee, received the said amount on behalf of the Company. In the present case, we do not feel that Mr.Amit Jain is the necessary party. So, the objection taken by Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 has no force, at all and the same stands rejected.
10. On the objection raised by Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 that how the complainant being NRI made the payment of Rs.32,54,000/-, in cash, at one go and, whether he has declared his income before the Income Tax Authorities and other authorities like State Government, RBI etc., it may be stated here that this issue is not concerned with the Builder that how the allottee at the time of booking of the unit arranged the money in one go or how he/she paid the installments. This issue is only concerned with the Income Tax Authorities or the Govt. that how the complainant made the payment in one go. So, we find no force in the contention of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and the same stands rejected.
11. The next question that falls for consideration is whether Annexures C-1 to C-4 attached by the complainant alongwith his complaint are forged and fabricated documents. The Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 submitted that the documents Annexures C-1 to C-4 are forged and fabricated documents because these documents are created with the active connivance of the complainants with Mr.Sanjay Jain, Mr.Amit Jain and others for causing huge loss to the Company. It was next submitted by the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, that Mr.Sanjay Jain (Opposite Party No.5) and Mr. Amit Jain, embezzled its (Company) huge amount and also played fraud with it (Company). He further denied regarding the booking of the unit in the project of the Company by the complainant and receipt of the huge amount of Rs.32,54,000/- and stated that the alleged unit No.1701 is still with Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 as unsold unit. He further submitted that an FIR registered against Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Amit Jain and others for their illegal and conspiracy regarding the fraud committed by them with the Company. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.5 i.e. Mr.Sanjay Jain was an employee of the Company, he knew about all the units, which are unsold in the project of the Company and in order to cause loss to the Company, Opposite Party No.5 is selling these vacant stocks of units by making forged, fabricated, undated documents. He further submitted that the aforesaid officials also forged receipts and other documents, in connivance with the consumers, as a result whereof, a criminal case had been lodged against them. It is, no doubt, true that Mr.Sanjay Jain and Mr.Amit Jain were the officials of the Company. It may be stated here that the complainant alongwith his wife Mrs. Seema Verma were allotted unit No.1701 by the Company after he made the entire payments in one go. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the application form itself mentioned that the Company had received full and final payment from the complainant and this fact was duly acknowledged by Mr.Sanjay Jain, who was the Director of the Company. He further submitted that the same was acknowledged by the Company vide allotment letter dated 19.03.2011 (Annexure C-2) and also in the Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-3), which was duly signed and stamped by the Company and hence, the Company cannot shirk away by stating that the said unit was never sold to him. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.5 i.e. Mr.Sanjay Jain also admitted in is written statement regarding receipt of Rs.32,54,000/- from the complainant in respect of unit No.1701. He further submitted that the said documents were issued on the letter head of the Company and were duly signed and stamped by the concerned official of the Company. He further submitted that the complainant has not dealt with any one employee or Director of the Company. It is, no doubt, true that the Buyer Agreement was undated. However, it was the responsibility of the Company to issue the Buyer Agreement with a proper date and it was not the fault of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant, in his rejoinder, stated that the Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 21.03.2011. A bare perusal of the document/application (at page No.19 of the file) it was clearly handwritten regarding receipt of the amount of Rs.32,54,000/-. Not only this, even in the allotment letter (at page No.43 of the file), there was clear print of the receipt of Rs.32,54,000/-. Moreover, in the Buyer Agreement (at page No.54 of the file), it is clearly printed that allottee has already paid a sum of Rs.32,54,000/-. It is not the case that the documents were not signed by any official of the Company but on bare perusal of the allotment letter and the Buyer Agreement clearly reveals that the same were duly stamped and signed by official of the Company. So, it is clearly proved that the Company has allotted unit No.1701 (Ground Floor) in the project "The Courtyard" in Sector 110, Mohali to the complainant. It may be stated here that if Mr.Sanjay Jain and Mr.Amit Jain, appointed by the Company, played fraud with the Company then what was the fault of the complainant ? The said documents i.e. Annexure C-1 to C-4 were issued by the aforesaid officials on behalf of the Company and not on his/their personal capacity. This was an internal affair of the Company vis-à-vis its Director who allegedly committed fraud with it (Company). If the aforesaid officials allegedly embezzled the huge amounts of the Company, and defrauded it, then it (Company) can proceed against them, for the recovery of amount, by filing a civil suit, and also under the criminal law by lodging an FIR. For their alleged acts of omission and commission, the third parties, cannot suffer. So, the objection taken by Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 has no force, at all, and the same stands rejected.
12. The next question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.32,54,000/-, as alleged by him, in respect of the unit, in question. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. It is clearly mentioned in the application form, allotment letter and also in the Agreement that the Company received the amount of Rs.32,54,000/- in his written statement. Even Opposite Party No.5 also admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs.32,54,000/-. To prove this fact, Opposite Party No.5 has also moved an application for placing on record some documents i.e. Annexures OP-5/6 to OP-5/10 alongwith his affidavit. Opposite Party No.5 has stated in his affidavit that the sale of flat No.1701 was duly in the knowledge of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. He further stated that the evidence by way of cash books marked as Annexures C-13 & C-14 in criminal complaint filed by Opposite Party No.4 in District Court, Chandigarh and in the said cash books, the cash amounting to Rs.32,54,000/- received from Mr.Bal Krishan Verma on 19.03.2011 regarding flat No.1701 is clearly shown that the said amount was received by the Company vide voucher No.126. The copies of the same are enclosed as Annexure OP-5/6. Another document, which was placed on record by Opposite Party No.4 in District Court, Chandigarh, is a list of payment received by the Company recasted tally by CA, whereby, the entry of Rs.32,54,000/- has been shown to be received by the Company (Annexure OP-5/7). He further submitted that flat No.1701 was in the knowledge of Opposite Party No.4, which can be evidenced from email sent by Mr.Amit Kanwar to Opposite Party No.4 on 02.05.2013 (Annexure OP-5/8) regarding detail of sale of flats including all the payments received by the Company. He has also placed on record one more email dated 26.08.2011, which was sent by Mr.Ashpinder Singh Sehgal, brother of Opposite Party No.4, regarding detail of status of construction of flat No.1701 sold to the complainant (Annexure OP-5/9). He further stated that Mr.Amit Kanwar again sent an email dated 09.12.2011 to Opposite Party No.4 regarding details of customers with their payments which also included details of flat No.1701 sold to the complainant (Annexure OP-5/10).
On the other hand, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 while filing reply to the application, denied the booking of the unit in the name of the complainant and receipt of the amount of Rs.32,54,000/- in respect of the unit, in question. He submitted that the present application is an afterthought and its sole purpose is to cause loss to Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. He further submitted the said application is just to cover up lacuna, which shows that there is connivance between the complainant and Opposite Party No.5, and, therefore, all the annexures are not proper and relevant documents.
After going through the documents annexed by Opposite Party No.5 alongwith his application, it is clearly proved that the complainant booked the flat and paid the amount of Rs.32,54,000/-, as is clear from the cash books. It is also proved from the letter/email that the booking of the unit by the complainant is also in the knowledge of Opposite Party No.4. Moreover, the complainant had paid his hard earned money to the Company for the unit, in question and whether those receipts were issued by Mr.Sanjay Jain/ Mr. Amit Jain or any other officials, the same were received by them on behalf of the Company. The complainant has no nexus with Mr.Sanjay Jain or Mr.Amit Jain because he deposited his hard earned money to the Company for the unit, in question and even when there was inter-se dispute between the Directors/officials of the Company, the complainant could not suffer. So, we are of the view that the documents, annexed by Opposite Party No.5, as additional evidence are necessary for the just decision of the case and the same are taken on record.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
So, it is clearly proved that the complainant made the total payment of Rs.32,54,000/- in respect of the unit, in question, to the Company.
13. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to within which period delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. As per Clause 9 of the Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-3), possession of the unit was to be delivered within the maximum period of 24 months from the execution of the Agreement, which was undated. According to the complainant, the Agreement was executed between the parties on 21.03.2011, so the possession was to be delivered to the complainant latest by 20.03.2013 and not more than that. However, in the present case, Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 denied the booking of the unit and receipt of the amount from the complainant in respect of the unit, in question, despite the fact that they received the huge amount of Rs.32,54,000/- in one go, which is totally unfair. So, the complainant is certainly entitled for the possession of the unit complete in all respects.
14. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.7000/- per month as delay charges for the period of delay in handing over of possession. Clause 9 of the Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-3), being relevant is extracted hereunder:-
"9. That the possession of the said premises is likely to be delivered by the company to the Floor alottee within a period of 24 months (18 months plus 6 months grace) from the date of this agreement subject to force majeure circumstances, & on receipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms and on receipt of complete payment of the basic sale price and other charges due and payable up to the date of possession according to the payment plan applicable to him. The Company on completion of the construction shall issue final call notice to the Floor Allottee who shall within 30 days thereof, remit all dues and take possession of the Floor. In the event of his failure to take possession for any reason whatsoever, he shall be deemed to have taken possession of the allotted unit for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit, but the actual physical possession shall be given on payment of all outstanding payments as demanded by the Company. The Allottee would be liable to pay holding charges @5/- per sq. ft. per month if he fails to take possession within 30 days from the date of issue of offer of possession. That if the construction is delayed due to normal course, other than conditions set out in point 10, then the company shall pay Rs.7,000/- per month as delay charges for the period of delay."
As per the complainant, Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 21.03.2011 and computing 24 months period therefrom, the Company was required to hand over possession by 20.03.2013. According to the complainant, when he came to India in December, 2013 and visited the site, but found that no construction work had commenced at the site. Inspite of complainant making the entire payment of Rs.32,54,000/- in one go, Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 failed to offer/deliver possession within the stipulated period, to the complainant and, therefore, they are liable to pay penalty at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 of the Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-3) from the booking of the unit till its possession.
15. Whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment and injury caused to him, is the next question, that requires determination. The complainant booked the unit, in question, with the hope to have a shelter over his head, but his hopes were dashed to the ground, when Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, failed to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period or by the time when the complaint was filed, despite the fact that huge amount of Rs.32,54,000/- was paid by him in one go. Even as per the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. latest by 20.03.2013 but they failed to deliver the possession, despite repeated requests. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had sent a legal notice through Regd. Post to the Company but they paid no heed to the same. Not only this, the complainant has also placed on record Certificate issued by Sh. Parminder Singh, Architect dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure C-5), the relevant portion of the said Certificate reads thus :-
"1. Approach road is not final to use.
2. Flooring work is pending in rear courtyard.
3. Electric boards & pipes has no wiring hence electric work is incomplete.
4. Parks are not well maintained.
5. Water including water supply fitting, sanitary & sewerage not in working condition.
6. Door & windows frames are not fitted."
So, in view of the afore-extracted certificate, it is clearly proved that the said unit was not complete, in all respects. In this view of the matter, the complainant, in our considered opinion, is entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him, at the hands of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac (one lac), which could be said to be reasonable.
16. Coming to the liability of Opposite Party No.5 i.e. Sh.Sanjay Jain (Director) of M/s Premium Acre Infratech Pvt. Limited, it may be stated here, that he cannot be held responsible for the acts of omission and commission of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. The complaint against Opposite Party No.5 is liable to be dismissed.
17. Since we are sufficiently granting possession of the unit alongwith sufficient delay charges, compensation and litigation expenses, the complainant is not entitled to any other relief, as claimed by him, in the prayer clause.
18. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with costs, against Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in the following manner:-
(i) Complainant is directed to make the payment of the balance amount with regard to other charges like service tax + Building Cess, club charges, IFMS, Sewerage, electricity, water, service tax on services and maintenance charges to Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
(ii) Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 shall jointly and severally hand over the legal physical possession of the unit, in question, within a period of four months, to the complainant, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the legally due amount, by the complainant.
(iii) Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 shall jointly and severally execute the sale/conveyance deed and get it registered in the name of the complainant after handing over the actual physical possession of unit, in question, within a period of one month thereafter. The stamp duty, registration charges and all other incidental and legal expenses for execution and registration of sale deed shall be borne by the complainant.
(iv) Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 jointly and severally shall pay compensation @Rs.7,000/- per month for delay in delivery of possession from 20.03.2013 uptil 31.12.2016 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
(v) Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 jointly and severally shall pay compensation @Rs.7,000/- per month for delay in delivering possession beyond 31.12.2016 by the 10th of succeeding month till actual handing over of physical possession.
(vi) Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are further jointly and severally, directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.00 lac (one lac) for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(vii) Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are further jointly and severally, directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
(viii) In case the order is not complied with, within the stipulated period, as indicated above, then Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (iv) alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of default, till realization and the amount mentioned in Clause (v) from the date of default till delivery of possession and the amount mentioned in Clause (vi) with interest @12% per annum from the date of default till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation.
20. Complaint qua Opposite Party No.5, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
21. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
12.01.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH [RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/- [DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/- [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER rb