National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shikha vs Jtpl Townships Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 25 March, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 08/02/2018 in Complaint No. 274/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. SHIKHA W/O. KRISHNA JASWAL RESIDNET OF LAT NO 301, GH23 SECTOR5 MDC PANCHKULA HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JTPL TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD. & ANR. JTPL HOUSE F-82, DISTRICT CENTRE SHIVAJI PALACE RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI 110027 2. DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD SCO 62, MADHYA MARG SECTOR 26 CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 08/02/2018 in Complaint No. 274/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. M/S. JTPL TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. JTPL HOUSE F82,
SHIVAJI PLACE RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI 110027 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHIKHA & ANR. W/O. SH KRISHNA JASWAL R/O. FLAT NO 301 GH23 SECTOR 5 MDC PANCHKULA 2. DEWAN HOUSING FINACE LTD SCO NO 62 MADHYA MARG SECTOR 26 CHANDIGAH ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Appellant : For the Complainants : Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate For the Respondent : For JTPL townships : Mr. K.K. Jha Advocate For Dewan Housing Corp. : Ms. Prarthana Sampath, A/R Dated : 25 Mar 2019 ORDER PER HON'BLE M. SHREESHA, MEMBER Aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2018 in Consumer Complaint No.274 of 2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short "the State Commission"), the Complainant and the first Opposite Party namely, M/s JTPL Township Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer") preferred First Appeal Nos. 557 of 2018 and 602 of 2017 respectively, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing the Developer to pay the following amounts:
Pay Rs.26,89,000/- + Rs.19,742/- + Rs.24,132/-=Rs. 27,32,834/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the various dates of payment minus the pre-EMIs interest paid by OP No. 1 to OP No.2. It is further observed that first payment due to OP No. 2 will be cleared first and then to the Complainant.
OP NO. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and inconvenience suffered by the Complainant.
Pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Since both these Appeals are arising out of a common impugned order, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts in brief are that the Complainant booked a residential Floor bearing No. 916-A (Ground Floor) on 24.07.2013 with the Developer in their township named JPTL city, Mohali for a sale consideration of ₹32,06,000/-. It was stated that at the time of booking, the Complainant was informed by the Agent of the Developer that the said residential floor would be consisting of two bedrooms with a cupboard in each bedroom, in living and drawing room lobby with a cupboard, modular kitchen and two toilets with the modern bath fittings and even the same was shown in the layout plan. Hence the Complainant opted for a corner Residential Ground Floor and also agreed to pay the Preferential Location Charges (PLC).
4. The Complainant paid a sum of ₹1,40,000/- vide cheque No. 504341 of Syndicate Bank, Panchkula and another sum of ₹60,000/- vide cheque No. 200613 drawn on Central Bank of India, Panchkula. On the asking of the Developer, the Complainant paid a sum of ₹70,000/- by cheque No. 200613 drawn on Central Bank of India, Panchkula and another sum of ₹30,000/- vide cheque No. 970148 of State Bank of Patiala, Panchkula on 14.10.2013. On 16.10.2013, the Complainant further paid a sum of ₹50,000/- vide cheque No. 504342 of Syndicate Bank, Panchkula, upon which the Developer issued the Allotment Letter dated 6.2.2014 alongwith payment plan as per appendix 'A' as well as the layout plan and specifications of material to be used alongwith details of interiors of the Floor. On 27.2.2014, the Complainant paid a sum of ₹70,000/- vide cheque No. 000002 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandigarh on 3.8.2014. She further paid a sum of ₹ 55,000/- vide cheque No. 054877 of Central Bank of India, Panchkula. The Developer issued Buyer's Agreement to the Complainant, which was undated. The Developer issued receipts in 2014 whereas the payment was received in the year 2013. The Complainant got sanctioned a loan from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "DHFL") for a sum of ₹ 24,60,000/- lacs and a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the Complainant, the Developer and DHFL. It was under Subvention Plan and under that the Developer was to pay Pre-EMI on behalf of the Complainant to DHFL from the date of disbursement of the loan till the delivery of possession of the residential designer Floor. DHFL disbursed a sum of ₹22,14,000/- to the Developer in installments as per the Subvention Plan till 18.1.2016.
5. On 15.5.2016, the Developer sent a letter for intimation of registration and for taking possession of the aforesaid residential Floor alongwith demand of ₹3,79,152/-. After receiving the said letter on 21.05.2016, the Complainant went to the site for inspection on 25.05.2016 and saw that the said Floor was not habitable as the external work and the internal work were far from complete. The Complainant sent an email along with the figures of the said site to the Developer on 31.05.2016 and raised al his concerns but on 02.06.2016, the Developer sent an email once again asking the Complainant to take possession of the said flat, along with some photographs showing that the interiors of the Floor was complete. It is averred that the Developer has intentionally clicked the photographs of the interiors of the Floor and not shown the other side of the project and even the electric switches were without covers and the windows were without glasses. Once again on 06.06.2016, the Complainant visited the site and found that the construction work was still going on. The whole layout plan has been changed and the said changes would affect the living conditions of the Complainant. In the body of the Complaint the Complainant has detailed the changes made as follows:
"(i) As per the layout plan there was required to be excess towards the backyard from both the bedrooms, but in actual only excess has been given from one bedroom.
(ii) No cupboards have been constructed by the OP No. 1 in any bedroom whereas the provision was shown to be in the walls for a cupboard in the layout plan. The OP no. 1 has not made any provisions for the cupboards whereas it is evident from the layout plan that there was to be provisions for cupboards in both the bedrooms as well in lobby. I n fact the cupboard are a very essential part of the bedrooms required for storage of articles without which it would not be possible for one to reside.
(iii) The both washrooms have also not been made as per the layout plan and moreover the internal fittings of the showers, taps and toilet fittings are placed very differently from the ones shown in the layout plan and because of the fittings made so awkwardly that it is not possible to sit in the bathroom as the western seat is placed in such a place that no one take a shower by sitting in the bathroom and moreover in the other bathroom the placements are made totally in contradiction to the layout plan such as the washbasin is placed opposite to the door and provision of shower is given where washbasin has been shown in the layout plan. These are material defects in the Floor constructed by OP No. 1
(iv) There is no P.O.P. work in the living/ dining room . It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of booking of the Floor the OP No.1 has categorically stated that POP would be done in all the rooms.
(v) In fact, the construction of the whole residential Floor is not as it figures in the layout plan on the project as the said Floor is facing the fields whereas the whole township is on the other way around.
(vi) Furthermore there is no modular kitchen constructed by the OP No. 1 as only drawers are placed in the kitchen without there being any fitting without which it cannot be said to be a modular kitchen. The OP no. 1 was required to construct proper modular kitchen. But in placed of modular kitchen only cupboards with drawers are provided without any fittings inside the drawers.
(vii) Another very astonishing fact also came to light as there was construction going on adjacent to the Floor of the Complainants. As mentioned earlier the Complainant has paid PLC for a corner Floor but here even after receiving the charges for the same the OP no. 1 were constructing another Floor adjoining the Floor of the Complainant."
6. On 20.06.2016, the Complainant once again took photographs and sent the same to the Developer stating that the Floor was far from complete and that the possession would only be a paper possession. The Complainant also intimated to DHFL to stop disbursing the payment to the Developer. DHFL replied to the email of the Complainant and agreed not to disburse any further amount.
7. The Complainant further informed the Developer that as there are major discrepancies in the construction he does not seek possession of the same and sought for refund of the amounts paid by the Complainant together with amounts disbursed by DHFL along with interest, but there was no response.
8. It is further averred that on 09.07.2016, the Developer sent an email to DHFL that pre EMIs should be charged from the Complainant with effect from 01.07.2016 as the intimation of the possession has already been conveyed to the Complainant on 15.05.2016. It was stated that the Developer on 15.07.2016 sent an email demanding an amount of ₹6,35,985/- and have also charged ₹5,554/- towards interest on the delayed payment. It was averred that such a demand by the Developer was totally illegal as the said Floor cannot be offered for possession when the construction is still going on. On 28.07.2016 the Complainant once again sent an email addressing to all the grievances to the Developer. The Complainant further protested regarding the charging of ₹19,742/- pre EMI for the month of July 2016, ₹24,132/- as pre EMI for the month of August 2016, which the Complainant was forced to pay. The Developer had printed very rosy picture at the time of booking promising a corner flat adjoining the park but in reality, the Developer was constructing another unit adjoining the said Floor. It is pleaded that the Complainant had paid an amount of ₹4,79,000/- to the Developer, availed loan from DHFL, which has forwarded the sum of ₹22,14,000/- and additionally the Complainant has also paid a pre EMI of ₹19,742/- for July 2016 and ₹24,132/- for August 2016. Totally, the Developer has received an amount of ₹26,89,000/- and the Complainant vexed with the attitude of the Developer seeks refund of the said amount of ₹26,89,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the respective dates of payment till the date of realization together with ₹10,00,000/- as compensation and ₹1,00,000/- as costs.
9. The Developer filed its Written Statement stating that there is no cause of action for the Complainant to file this Complaint as already vide letter dated 15.05.2016 the Complainant was directed to take delivery of possession of the subject flat; and that the Complainant booked the Floor under Subvention Scheme and till the construction is complete or intimation letter is issued to the Complainant to execute the Sale Deed, the Developer would pay the Pre-EMI interest to DHFL. It was denied that the Complainant was promised that the cupboard would be given in every bedroom or any sort of wooden work. It was a booking of a simple flat with simple kitchen work like cabinets for utensils and drawers fitted with SS framework. It was denied that any layout plan was attached with the Allotment Letter, in fact the Allotment Letter along with Appendix 'A' of payment plan was issued to the Complainant. It was denied that the Buyers Agreement executed between the Parties was undated and it was admitted that the Tripartite Agreement was entered into between the Complainant, the Developer and DHFL and that ₹22,14,000/- was disbursed by DHFL to the Developer.
10. Vide letter dated 15.05.2016, a notice was issued to the Complainant to pay the balance amount of ₹3,79,152/- and ₹2,46,000/- to be paid by DHFL. The Developer denied that the flat was not ready in all respects. It was specifically averred that the Occupation Certificate was obtained by the Developer on 14.06.2016 and email was addressed to the Complainant on 02.06.2016, in reply to the Complainant's email dated 31.05.2016 and the changes made in the layout of the Floor was completely denied. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Developer.
11. DHFL filed their reply stating that the dispute inter se between the Complainant and the Developer and that as offer of possession has been made to the Complainant; DHFL has rightly demanded the amount from the Complainant against the premium. It was averred that a loan of ₹24,60,000/- was sanctioned and an amount of ₹22,14,000/- was disbursed and hence there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
12. The State Commission based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint in part and observed as follows:
"10. Now with regard to the possession letter, it was offered on 15.5.2016 and after that the Complainant had gone at the spot Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 2016 and had taken the photographs, which are Ex. C-15. These were taken by him on 26.5.2016 and it clearly shows that work on the Floor is still going on, therefore, as on 15.5.2016, the flat was not complete. It has not been denied that the photographs Ex. C-15 are not dated 26.5.2016 and that still the Floor was incomplete. The Complainant had given the email Ex. C-16 on 31.5.2016 giving all the details and pictures were attached to the Op No.1. Then Op No. 1 replied in email dated 27.6.2016 Ex. C-20 in which they have stated that the work was going on in other flats. But in the rebuttal they have not denied the photographs. In reply to that email, the Complainant again gave email dated 27.6.2016 Ex. C-21 in which it was stated that there adjoining flat was still under construction, pictures were attached, therefore, it was not feasible to shift in such a residential area and it has been further stated that she was charged for PLC and now other building is coming up. Therefore, at the time of offering the possession, the flat in question was not complete and offer of possession was delivered just to save the pre-EMI payments to Op No. 2. No doubt that Op No. 2 has taken the partial completion certificate of this plot only and not of the project, therefore, simple partial completion certificate of this flat is not acceptable because it does not refer to completion of other amenities attached to the project/Floor. It has been further stated that there is no POP work in the living room. It was so undertaken by them in the specifications alongwith the layout plan Ex. C-8 and in the first line, it has been stated that POP in living/drawing room and OBD on fine surface in bedrooms and lobby. The counsel for Op No. 1 has not placed on the record any photograph showing POP work in living/dining room. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is deviation in the construction by Op No. 1 for not giving opening to rear balcony from both the bedrooms. It is provided only in one bedroom. No cupboard in both the bedrooms. No cupboard in lobby. Instead of modular kitchen only simple kitchen has been provided and the wash rooms have not been made as per the layout plan. The showers taps and toilet fittings have been placed differently than what has been shown in the layout plan, therefore, it is practically not possible to sit in the bathroom as the western seat is placed in such a place that no one can take a shower. No POP work in the living/dining room. PLC was charged for two roads to the flat but it is only one road and PLC charges were wrongly charged. Instead of giving road to the corner, they have started raising construction. Whether in such a situation, the Complainant is bound to accept the possession. Certainly, its reply will be in negative. In the written arguments, what have been stated in the written reply the same have been repeated in the written arguments. In case Op No. 1 has not raised the construction as per the layout plan and the specifications given at the time of booking of the flat then Complainant is not bound to accept such a flat. Then completion certificate is only with regard to one flat only and not of the project and till the amenities attached to the project are not complete then completion of the construction of one flat is meaningless because it is a township and not a single flat. In that situation, the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him directly and on his behalf by Op No. 2. With regard to the payment of Rs.26,89,000/-, it stands admitted because Rs.4,75,000/- was paid by the Complainant from his own pocket and Rs.22,14,000/- was paid by Op No. 2 on behalf of the Complainant to Op No. 1. Since the flat was not complete as on 15.5.2016, therefore, the payment of pre-EMI of Rs.19,742/- and Rs.24,132/- paid by the Complainant to Op No. 2 is also required to be paid by Op No. 1 to Op No. 2."
13. Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant/Appellant in First Appeal No. 557 of 2018 vehemently argued that though the State Commission has given a right finding of deficiency of service against the Developer, it has failed to appreciate that DHFL was also at default as without verifying the facts and monitoring the project, they have released the entire amount which has been done in a mechanical manner. As per the Tripartite Agreement and the Subvention Scheme under which the Complainant had booked the Floor, DHFL was supposed to release the money at various stages of construction. This was completely overlooked by DHFL and the amounts were released to the Developer without obtaining any layout plan and without even checking the stages of construction. Had DHFL been vigilant prior to release of the amounts to the Developer, it could have saved the Complainant from harassment and mental agony. Though the Complainant had exercised a choice of Subvention Plan for making the payment to the Developer, DHFL did not adhere to the same thereby causing severe financial hardship to the Complainant. It was further argued that the order of the State Commission ought to be modified by awarding refund of EMI of ₹4,10,244/- i.e. EMI of ₹24,132/- per month by the Complainant from September 2016 till January, 2018. Additionally, the Complainant is also entitled for refund of ₹4,75,000/- + ₹19,742/- + ₹24,132/-= ₹5,18,874/-. It is also prayed that the Developer should be directed to pay the pre EMIs as he had used the finance amount but has deviated from the original layout plan and the preferred location was also not provided.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the Developer/ Appellant in First Appeal No. 602 of /2018 submitted that the Completion Certificate dated 14.06.2016 certifies that the site plan of house and Plot No. 916 has been submitted and approved by the office of Municipal Council Kharar; that both parties executed the Buyer's Agreement; that total payment till date is ₹26,89,000/- i.e. ₹4,79,000/- from the Complainant and ₹22,14,000/- from DHFL, but the balance amount due is ₹6,25,152/- i.e. ₹3,79,152/- from the Complainant and ₹2,46,000/- from DHFL. He further argued that the booking was under Subvention Scheme and therefore when the intimation letter dated 15.05.2016 was given calling upon the Complainant to take possession of the house the liability of the Developer to pay the pre EMI has ceased. He also drew our attention to the site plan showing Plot No. 916, which is a corner Plot. He also drew our attention to Clause 6 of the Agreement which reads as follows:
"The Buyer(s) agrees to pay additional charges fixed by the company for preferentially located Floor i.e. Corner Plots, Park Facing Plots, Wide Roads Facing Plots. However the Buyer(s) specifically agrees that due to any change in the layout plan, if the said Floor ceases to be in a preferential location, the company may refund only the amount of Preferential Location, the company may adjust of refund only the amount of PLC paid by the Buyer(s) and such amount shall be adjusted in the last installment as stated in the payment plan. If due to change in layout plan, the, said Floor becomes preferentially located, in such case, the Buyer(s) shall be liable and agreed to pay the amount as and when demanded by the company as Preferential Location Charges."
15. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the Plot has a two side road and that if the Complainant does not get the registration done after completion of the construction there is a forfeiture clause in the Agreement which envisages 20% forfeiture. He further argued that the whole township is spread over hundreds of acres and some construction work has been going on at some point of time and the Complainant cannot take advantage of this situation. The Complainant is bound to pay the service tax. Learned counsel vehemently denied that there were any deviation from the layout plan and submitted that the Floor was constructed as per the Floor Plans and all the provision of gates, cupboards and wood work was within the ambit of the contract terms and hence there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
16. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Developer is that no Preferential Location Charges (PLC) were taken from the Complainant is unsustainable in the light of their own demand notice dated 15.05.2016 in which ₹3,79,152/- was demanded to be paid by 31.05.2016, ₹50,000/- was demanded to be paid under "Preferential Location Charges (PLC)" for Floor No. 916-A ground floor admeasuring 1778 sq. yd. The contention of the Developer that one road is on the back side and that is why PLC was taken is untenable in the light of the fact that the backside road abuts the Floors on the backside and there is no direct access to this backside road.
17. A perusal of the communication between the Complainant and the Developer including the various emails addressed shows that the Complainant had complained about the non-completion of the subject Floor from 26.05.2016. The Photographs of the subject Floor was also annexed along with the email communication. An email on record evidences that the Completion Certificate was taken only on 14.06.2016, whereas offer of possession was made on 15.05.2016, which is much prior to the date of issue of the Completion Certificate.
18. The documents on record substantiate that on 31.05.2016 the Complainant had addressed an email giving all the details of the incomplete work together with the photographs in which the Developer replied vide email dated 27.06.2016, in which they have only stated that the work was going on in other flats. The documentary evidence establishes that at the time of offering of the possession, the flat in question was incomplete and also did not have the completion certificate and therefore the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in a catena of judgments that offer of possession without Occupation Certificate cannot be considered as a legal possession, squarely applies to the facts of this case.
19. DHFL has taken into consideration only the partial Completion Certificate of the plot and not of the project and therefore simple partial Completion Certificate is not acceptable because it does not refer to completion of other amenities attached to the project/ Floor. The State Commission has given a detailed order with respect to the status of completion of each feature and amenity promised by the Developer and which has not been adhered to as per the specifications of the layout plan and we see no illegality or infirmity to interfere with the well-reasoned order.
20. The State Commission has rightly relied on rule 17 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), which specified that the rate of interest on refund of the money upon cancellation of the Agreement should be 12% p.a. payable from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment.
21. Now, we address ourselves to the contention of the Complainant that DHFL ought to be made liable to pay some compensation. For better understanding of the case the terms of the Tripartite Agreement with specific reference to the Subvention Scheme is being reproduced as hereunder:
Subvention Scheme 1 At the time of Registration 10% + Service Tax 2 At the time of Allotment 10% + Service Tax 3 On commencement of construction 20% + Service Tax (if the loan sanction by banks less than 80% then difference shall be payable within 30 days at this stage) 4 On completion of DPC 15% + Service Tax 5 On Completion of GF roof slab 10% + Service Tax 6 On Completion of FF roof slab 10% + Service Tax 7 On completion of Super Structure/ Masonry work 10% + Service Tax 8 On completion of Door/ windows Fames fixing & Internal plastering 05% + Service Tax 9 On completion of External Plaster 05% + Service Tax 10 At the time of Intimation of possession 05% + Service Tax
22. Having regard to the fact that there was a Tripartite Agreement and that a loan of ₹24,60,000/- was sanctioned out of which an amount of ₹22,14,000/- was released and as per Clause 3 of the said Agreement; the pre EMI shall be paid by the Developer on behalf of the Complainant till such time the Developer does not handover possession of the Residential Designer Floor; that the Developer shall not handover actual and physical possession of the subject Residential Designer Floor to the Complainant before execution and registration of the Sale Deed and the original Sale Deed shall be submitted to the DHFL directly; that in the event of cancellation for any reason whatsoever, the entire amount advanced by DHFL would be refunded by the Developer to DHFL; that the Developer shall in no circumstances forfeit any amount over and above the amount equivalent to the borrowers contribution towards the purchase contribution paid to the Developer and finally that the Developer shall keep DHFL informed about the progress of the project/ residential Floor and obtained a clearance from DHFL before handing over of possession all clearly evidences that DHFL is bound by the terms of the Agreement and the Subvention Scheme and ought to have released the amounts as per the stages of Subvention Scheme. Authorised Representative of DHFL argued that the dispute inter se between the Complainant and the Developer and that as offer of possession has been made to the Complainant, DHFL has rightly demanded the amount from the Complainant against the premium. At this juncture, we find it relevant to refer to the miscellaneous instructions issued vide circular No. NBH(ND)/DRS/REG/MC-04/2016 dated 01.07.2016 by 'National Housing Bank' the Regulatory body to all Housing Finance Companies with specific reference to Master Circular on Housing Finance. This Master Circular on Housing Finance discusses among various Regulations, 'the disbursement of housing loan to individual linked to the stages of construction'. Clause 39 of this circular, which is relevant to this case is reproduced as hereunder:
"39. 55Disbursement of housing loan to individual linked to the stages of construction As the higher risk associated with lump-sum disbursal of sanctioned housing loan and customer suitability issues, HFCs are advised that disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing projects / houses and upfront disbursal should not be made in case of incomplete/under-construction / green field housing project / houses. HFCs while introducing any kind of product should take into account the customer suitability and appropriateness issues and also ensure that the borrowers / customers are made fully aware of the risk and liabilities under such products."
(Emphasis supplied) The aforenoted regulation specifies that the Housing Finance Companies need to disburse Housing Loans as per the stages of constructions. The contention of DHFL that since the possession was offered on 15.05.2016 the Developer however stopped paying pre EMI is untenable, in the light of the fact that as on the date of possession neither was the construction complete nor was there any Completion Certificate and this cannot be construed as offer of legal possession. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant that DHFL was not vigilant in the disbursal of the amount directly as per the Subvention Scheme for which act of deficiency of service a reasonable compensation of ₹1,00,000/- is being awarded.
23. For all the aforenoted reasons, we also find it a fit case to modify the order of the State Commission with respect to refund of EMIs of ₹4,10,244/- which has been paid by the Complainant for EMIs at ₹24,132/- per month from Septmenber,2016 till January, 2018 together with the reasonable interest @ ₹12% p.a. from January, 2018 i.e. the last date of the payment of EMI till the date of realization to be paid by the Developer to the Complainant.
23. In the result First Appeal No. 557 of 2018 is allowed partly to the extent indicated above and First Appeal No. 602 of 2018 is dismissed. The statutory amount stands refunded to the Appellant in First Appeal No. 602 of 2018.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER