State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gp. Cpt. Arun Bali (Retd.) vs Ireo Fiveriver Private Limited on 27 May, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No. : 215 of 2015 Date of Institution : 15.09.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Gp. Cpt. Arun Bali (Retd.), S/o Nounidh Rai Bali, Now R/o 604/13, Bollywood Height, Daisy, Peer Mushalla, P.O. Dhakoli, District Mohali. ......Complainant Versus M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.6-8, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director. ....Opposite Party Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 216 of 2015 Date of Institution : 15.09.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Lt. Col. Arvind Bali (Retd.), S/o Nounidh Rai Bali, R/o Flat No.704, E-7, GH-79, Sector 20, Panchkula. ......Complainant Versus M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.6-8, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director. .....Opposite Party Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 239 of 2015 Date of Institution : 13.10.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Bodh Raj Aggarwal R/o House No.251, Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. ......Complainant Versus M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., An IREO Group Company through its Managing Director/Chairman, Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160009. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., An IREO Group Company through its Managing Director/Chairman, Registered Office at 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110015. .....Opposite Parties. Argued by:Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 240 of 2015 Date of Institution : 15.10.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Sneh Mehta W/o Sh. S. K. Mehta R/o House No.5, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. Sh. S. K. Mehta S/o Late Sh. S. L. Mehta R/o House No.5, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. ......Complainants Versus M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., An IREO Group Company through its Managing Director/Chairman, Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160009. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., An IREO Group Company through its Managing Director/Chairman, Registered Office at 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110015. .....Opposite Parties. Argued by:Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the complainants. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 241 of 2015 Date of Institution : 13.10.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Neelam Aggarwal W/o Sh. Prem Raj Aggarwal R/o House No.251, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. Lovekesh Goyal S/o Sh. K. L. Goyal, R/o House No.251, NAC, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. ......Complainant Versus M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., An IREO Group Company through its Managing Director/Chairman, Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160009. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., An IREO Group Company through its Managing Director/Chairman, Registered Office at 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110015. .....Opposite Parties. Argued by:Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the complainants. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 279 of 2015 Date of Institution : 18.11.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Teg Singh Sandhu S/o Kartar Singh Sandhu R/o Kothi No.70, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. ......Complainant Versus M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office, SCO No.6-8, 1st and 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Ms. Sunaina Minhas D/o Maj. Arbinder Singh. .....Opposite Party Argued by:Sh. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 280 of 2015 Date of Institution : 18.11.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Teg Singh Sandhu S/o Kartar Singh Sandhu R/o Kothi No.70, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. ......Complainant Versus M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office, SCO No.6-8, 1st and 2nd Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Ms. Sunaina Minhas D/o Maj. Arbinder Singh. .....Opposite Party Argued by:Sh. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party. ================================================ Complaint case No. : 299 of 2015 Date of Institution : 07.12.2015 Date of Decision : 27.05.2016 Smt. Simarjeet Kaur Saini W/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh R/o H.No.2216, Sector 15/C, Chandigarh. ......Complainant Versus M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd., having its corporate office at SCO No.6-8, 1st and 2nd Floor, Sector 9/D, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative. .....Opposite Party Argued by:Sh. Munish Joshi, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party. Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of consumer complaints bearing No.215/2015, 216/2015, 239/2015, 240/2015, 241/2015, 279/2015, 280/2015 & 299 of 2015, referred to above. The issues involved in all the above cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that these complaints can be decided by passing a consolidated order. To dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.215 of 2015 titled "Gp. Cpt. Arun Bali (Retd.) Vs. IFEO Fiveriver Private Limited".
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was serving as Group Captain and nearing his retirement, with a dream to have his residence in Panchkula, applied for a plot of 370 sq. yd. in 'IREO Fiveriver Project, Panchkula' on 1.9.2010 by paying Rs.9,25,000/- to the Oppostie Party. Vide welcome letter dated 23.05.2011 received by the complainant, Plot type B-1, No.T-98 was tentatively booked for him. Provisional allotment letter dated 26.3.2011, allotting Plot No.T-98 at the basic sale price of Rs.25,000/- per square yard i.e. total Rs.92,51,000/- apart from EDC, IDC and PLC was issued. The complainant received demand of Rs.13,87,750/-vide letter dated 26.03.2011, which he deposited on 25.04.2011 and receipt whereof was issued on 09.05.2011. Vide letter dated 25.05.2011, the plot allotted to the complainant was renumbered as T-68 due to revision in layout plan. Subsequently, another demand of Rs.13,52,958.75 was raised vide letter dated 30.05.2011, which demand was lateron withdrawn, because of change of time linked payment plan to development linked payment plan vide letter dated 20.06.2011. A Plot Buyer's Agreement was entered into between the complainant and the Opposite Party on 16.11.2011 at Chandigarh. As per clause 11.1 of the said Agreement, the Opposite Party was to hand over possession of the plot to the complainant within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement (Annexure C-12). According to the complainant, the Opposite Party did nothing towards development at the site and the period of 24 months for handing over possession of the plot expired on 16.11.2013 and the grace period of further six months also expired on 16.05.2014. When approached, the Opposite Party did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant received letter dated 16.03.2015 (Annexure C-13) from the Opposite Party informing that "all pre-requisites for commencement of construction/development works are now in place including the approval from Natinal Board of wildlife and we are commencing the development work for our project." The complainant replied vide his letter dated 06.04.2015 requesting the Opposite Party for refund of his amount alongwith interest. It was stated that even after passing of more than three years from the date of execution of the Agreement, the Opposite Party neither offered possession of the plot nor refunded the money. It was further stated that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint bearing No.86/2015 before this Commission, which was dismissed as premature vide order dated 23.07.2015, as per which, the complainant was entitled to file the complaint after 15.08.2015 i.e. after completion of 42 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and further 90 days period was there from the date of request for refund made by the complainant.
3. It was further stated that the Opposite Party very cleverly sent a letter dated 17.08.2015 demanding Rs.38,59,935/- and an update letter that work was going on at the site. It was further stated that since the Opposite Party failed to start any development, the complainant purchased a flat for residential purposes out of his gratuity and retirement benefits in December 2012, as he retired on 31.10.2012. It was further stated that the acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
4. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) claiming refund of Rs.23,12,650/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the respective dates of deposits, Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment and Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. The Opposite Party in its written statement, took up certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, due to existence of arbitration Clause No.34 in the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 16.11.2011; that the complainant was not a consumer as the present complaint related to the enforcement of agreement to sell/purchase of a residential plot i.e. an immoveable property and hence was not covered under the Act; that the complainant did not hire any services of the Opposite Party, as the parties did not enter into any contract for hiring the services; that the complainant did not book the plot for his personal use but for investment/commercial purpose; that the allegations in the complaint being of contractual nature, were only triable by the Civil Court and that the complainant is not a consumer as firstly, , he did not buy any goods and secondly, the construction/development activity was to be carried out by the Opposite Party, on its own land and as such, no service was to be provided to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, under the Agreement.
6. On merits, provisional allotment made vide letter dated 26.03.2011 was admitted. It was stated that the Opposite Party was estopped by the Government Authorities to commence the development work at the site and, as such, the Opposite Party changed the time linked payment plan to the development linked payment plan vide letter dated 29.06.2011. It was further stated that delay was on account of unforeseen conditions/restrictions imposed by the Government Authorities. It is averred that layout plans and licence to develop 169.864 acres of land was granted on 23.03.2010, however, after execution of the Buyers Agreement, road circulation plan of the Sector, where the project is situated, was changed on 22.11.2011. The Opposite Party was directed to amend its layout plans accordingly, which were submitted within a month. However, its approval-in-principal was given only on 02.08.2013 and was confirmed on 14.10.2013. Fresh condition to get the project hydraulically studied, from a premier institute was also imposed. It is further stated that vide letter dated 16.03.2011, DTCP Haryana, directed the Opposite Party, not to carry out earth work/construction at the site, without obtaining NOC from the Irrigation Department, which was granted only on 20.03.2013 i.e. after about two years. Licence for additional land measuring 10.594 acres plus 18.343 acres, which was a part of the project was not cleared by the Department, as the area was situated in squatted small pockets. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ravinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, SLP 21786-21788 of 2010, vide order dated 19.04.2012 granted stay and issued directions to the State of Haryana and its functionaries, not to undertake any further construction on the land, in question. The said stay order was vacated on 12.12.2012. Approval for environment clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, was also sought, which was granted only on 15.04.2014. It was stated that all the events mentioned above, were beyond the control of the opposite party, and as such, the development at the project site could not be commenced. It was further stated that the National Board of wild Life (NBWL) granted the formal clearance letter to the Opposite Party only on 24.4.2015 and thus, in process, the Opposite Party became entitled to commence the development at site on 14.03.2015 when the case for grant of clearance was recommended by NBWL. Thus, after recommendation, the Opposite Party informed the allottees including the complainant vide letter dated 16.3.2015 that it shall be starting the construction work shortly. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had already granted contract for development work to the contractor and on cessation of the force majeure conditions, the development work at the site had already commenced and in a short span of six months, considerable development had already been taken place at the site including the one, where plot of the complainant is situated. It was further stated that the complainant did not make the payment of the due installments till date despite notices/reminders (Annexures OP-25 to OP-32), which was willful and persistent breach of the Agreement. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. The complainant filed replication, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated the same, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
8. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
9. The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Rajneesh, its Authorised Representative, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. It is evident, on record, that the application of the complainant for allotment of a plot was accepted vide welcome letter dated 26.3.2011 (Annexure C-3) and he was allotted Plot No.T-98, type B-1, admeasuring 370.04 sq. yards in the Township known as 'IREO Fiveriver', situated at Sector 3, 4 & 4A, Pinjore-Kalka, Urban Complex, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana alongwith which, Details of Plot and Payment Plan (Annexure -A) were also details. The basic sale price was Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard besides External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.4,100/- per sq. yard, Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) @Rs.525/- per sq. yard and IFMS charges @Rs.350/- per sq. yard. Plot allotted to the complainant was subsequently renumbered as T68 instead of T98 vide letter dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure C-7) due to revision in the layout plan. It is also evident that the Opposite Party offered change of payment plan from Time Linked Payment Plan to the Development Linked Payment Plan vide letter dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure C-10) and the complainant did not raise any objection, to the same. Admittedly, Plot Buyer's Agreement was executed between the complainant and the Opposite Party on 16.11.2011 (Annexure C-12). The payment against the aforesaid plot was to be regulated as per Development Linked Payment Plan for Plots (at page 28 of the file). Against the total basic sale price of Rs.92,51,000/- excluding EDC and IDC; the complainant made payment in the sum of Rs.23,12,650/- to the Opposite Party. Admittedly, as is evident from letter dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure C-13), the construction activity was to start and the Opposite Party was in the process of sending out demand letters for the installment payable at that milestone. On getting the aforesaid letter, the complainant sought refund of the amount alongwith interest @24% per annum vide notice dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure C-14) and thereafter filed the instant complaint on 15.09.2015. According to Clause 11.1 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the opposite party, it was to deliver physical possession of the unit, within a period of 30 months i.e. 24 months plus (+) 6 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), with complete basic amenities, as provided in Clause 22.3. When the complainant sought refund on 06.04.2015, 41 months period after execution of Plot Buyer's Agreement stood lapsed.
12. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Act (in short 1996 Act), this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, this Commission elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha's case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. This Commission after dealing with the unamended/amended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 3 of 1986 Act, and in view of law laid down in judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) and Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013 and judgments of National Commission in DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013; Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited's & Ors., Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 decided on 8.6.2015 and Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors., First Appeal No. 127 of 2016, decided on 18.03.2016, came to the conclusion that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also by the National Commission in a large number of cases, Section 3 of 1986 Act provides for an additional remedy available to a consumer and the said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act. Further the remedy under the 1986 Act is cost effective and much speedier than the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Referring the matter to the Arbitrator would defeat the very purpose of General Assembly Resolution No.39/248 and the provisions of 1986 Act and in view of above, the plea raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (in that case), was rejected. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission in Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, consumer complaint No.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016, by further holding as under:-
"20. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. In the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase a unit, in a housing project, launched by the opposite party. It was their hope that they will live therein. However, their hopes were shattered, when despite making payment of entire amount towards price, they failed to get possession of a unit, in a developed project. As per established ratio of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and also in the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), it was said that the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.
21. In view of the above, the argument raised by Counsel for the opposite party that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected".
Further this Commission in case titled ' Sukhjinder Singh Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd.', Complaint Case No.278 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2016, held as under:-
"Not only as above, execution of judgment/decree passed by the Consumer Foras is very easy and less time consuming. Invariably, in all the judgments passed, between one to three months' time, is granted to the judgment debtors(s) to discharge liability. If it is not so done, and the order is not stayed in the meantime by the Higher Fora, two options are available with the complainant/decree holder. Section 25 of 1986 Act provides the procedure to enforce orders by the Consumer Foras. In Sector 25 (3), it is provided that where any amount is due from any person, under an order passed by any Consumer Fora, the concerned Consumer Fora, on an application moved by the decree holder, may issue a certificate to the Collector of the District, to recover the said amount, by way of land revenue, in terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The said provision is also very stringent. The Collector is supposed to attach the holding of the judgment debtors to take the said property under his own management and control. The Collector is further supposed to manage the said property and raise all rents and profits accruing therefrom to the exclusion of the defaulter, until the decree is satisfied. The above procedure will consume at the maximum four to six months, for realization of the amount awarded. Further option is also available to a complainant/decree holder, to move an application under Section 27 of 1986 Act, which provides that where a trader or a person against whom, a complaint was made, fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Fora, such party would entail award of punishment of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one month, but may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and may be extended upto Rs.10,000/-, or both. This provision is very effective, as and when application is moved under Section 27 of 1986 Act, for fear of imprisonment, it is seen that immediately the judgment debtor(s) make an attempt to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Foras. Whereas, to the contrary Section 36 of 1996 Act, provides that award shall be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner, as if it was a decree of a Court. Such a procedure is very costly and time consuming. Executing a decree would virtually mean fighting one more litigation, in a Court, to get enforcement of the award. If such a procedure is adopted, it will defeat the very purpose and spirit of 1986 Act. Accordingly, in this view of the matter and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected."
In Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission held as under:-
"In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 andNational Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986."
13. In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the Opposite Party, stand rejected.
14. To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Party was that the complainant, being investor, had purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate and, as such, it would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of 1986 Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Party, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja's case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the flat, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, II (2016) CPJ 316 (NC). The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit(s), was/were purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
15. Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Party was that since the complainant sought enforcement of the Agreement, in respect of the immovable property, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party, for purchasing the plot, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Party, it was to hand over possession of the plot, in question, within a period of thirty months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines 'service' as under:-
"service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service"
16. From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes 'service' within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the objection of the Opposite Party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
17. The next objection, raised by the Opposite Party, was that the complainant is not a consumer as he did not buy any goods. It may be stated here that the complainant purchased a plot in the project of the Opposite Party, for consideration paid. Thus, for consideration paid, the Opposite Party assured handing over of possession of the plot, allotted to the complainant, within a stipulated period, after due development and basic amenities. Therefore, for the services promised, the complainant clearly falls within the definition of a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, this objection of the Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
18. It is also argued with vehemence by Counsel for the opposite party that construction/development activity was to be carried out by the opposite party, on its own land and since no service was to be provided as alleged, to the complainant, by the opposite party, under the said Agreement, as such, he would not fall within the definition of consumer and thus complaint deserves to be dismissed.
19. This plea has been refuted by Counsel for the complainant. He has referred to Clause 22.3 of the Agreement, which reads thus:-
"The Company shall carry out the internal development within the IREO Fiveriver project, which inter alia, incudes laying of the roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. However, it is understood that external linkages for these services beyond periphery of the IREO Fiveriver project, such as water lines, sewer lines, storm water drains, roads, electricity, horticulture and other such integral services are to be provided by the State Government authorities and/ or the Local Authorities."
It is specifically stated that Company shall carry out the internal development within the IREO Fiveriver project, which inter alia, incudes laying of the roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. however, external development thereof, will be the responsibility of State Government. Above provision leaves no doubt that a promise of providing services, referred to above, was also made under Clause 22.3 of the Agreement, alongwith possession of the fully developed plot over which construction can be raised. Nobody will purchase only a piece of land, without promise of development, at such a high price i.e. Rs.25,000/- per square yard. In this view of the matter, it doesn't lie in the mouth of the opposite party to say that construction/development activity was to be carried out by the opposite party, on its own land and that no service was to be provided, as alleged, to the complainant, under the said Agreement. The plea taken by the opposite party in this regard, stands rejected.
20. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered to the complainant. As stated above, according to Clause 11.1 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions/reasons, beyond the control of the opposite party, it was to deliver physical possession of the unit, within a period of 30 months i.e. 24 months plus (+) 6 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), with complete basic amenities, as provided in Clause 22.3 i.e. latest by 15.05.2014. It is also evident, from the combined reading of Clauses 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 16.11.2011, that possession was to be delivered within maximum period of within 42 months of the execution thereof. Period of 42 months from 16.11.2011 expired on 15.05.2015. Thus, the complainant became entitled to opt for termination of the allotment/Agreement, and seek refund of the actual paid up installments made against the plot. The complainant applied for refund of the deposited amount on 06.04.2015 prior to the completion of the stipulated period of 42 months, as a result whereof, the earlier consumer complaint filed by him was dismissed being premature. Now the present complaint filed on 15.09.2015, seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest is maintainable as the same has been filed after exhausting that 90 days period.
21. Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, has not been delivered by the Opposite Party to the complainant till the date, the instant complaint was filed or even till date. In the written version, the opposite party, frankly admitted, that possession of the plot, in question, could not be offered to the complainant, for want of construction and development work at the site, on account of the reasons beyond its control i.e. on account of force majeure circumstances. Clause 1 of the Agreement, reads thus:-
"Force Majeure" shall mean any event beyond the reasonable control of the Company or Confirming Parties by itself or in combination with other events or circumstances which cannot (i) by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or (ii) despite the adoption of reasonable precautions and/or alternative measures, have been prevented, or caused to have been prevented, and which impairs or adversely affects the Company's/Confirming Parties' ability to perform its obligation under this Agreement, and which events and circumstances shall include but not be limited to a) acts of God, i.e. fire, drought, flood, earthquake, epidemics, natural disasters or deaths or disabilities; b) explosions or accidents, air crashes and shipwrecks; c) strikes of lock outs, industrial dispute; d)non-availability of cement, steel or other construction material due to strikes of manufactures, suppliers, transporters or other intermediaries or otherwise; e)war and hostilities of war, riots or civil commotion; f) non-grant, refusal, delay, withholding, cancellation of any approval from any governmental authority or imposition of any adverse condition or obligation in any approvals from any governmental authority, including any delay beyond the control of the Company/ Confirming Parties in issuance of the Completion Certificate and/or any other approvals/certificate as may be required; g) any matter, issues relating to grant of approvals/permissions, notices, notifications by the Competent Authority becoming subject matter of any suit/writ before a Court of law; h) the promulgation of or amendment in any law, rule or regulation or the issue of any injunction, court order or direction from any governmental authority that prevents or restricts the Company/Confirming Parties from complying with any or all the terms and conditions as agreed in this Agreement; i) economic recession; j) any event or circumstances analogous to the foregoing.
However, the force majeure circumstances, which have been claimed by the opposite party, for not starting development and construction work, at the site are, delay in sanction of layout plans by the Competent Authorities; delay in grant of NOC from the Irrigation Department; delay in clearance and delayed grant of licence for additional land measuring 10.594 acres plus 18.343 acres, by the Competent Authorities, as the area was situated in a squatted small pockets; delay in approvals for environment clearance by the Competent Authorities; and also stay on construction on the land, in question, granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ravinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, SLP 21786-21788 of 2010, vide order dated 19.04.2012, which was finally vacated on 12.12.2012.
22. Now here, the question arises, as to whether, the aforesaid circumstances, encountered by the opposite party, can be termed as force majeure circumstances, for non-development & construction work at the site and non-delivery of possession of the units, by the stipulated date or not.
23. First coming to the plea taken by the opposite party regarding delay in sanction of final lay-out plans by the Competent Authorities, it may be stated here that the said plea does not merit acceptance. It was the bounden duty of the opposite party, to get approved the final layout plans, in respect of the project, in question before launching the project, and only, thereafter, accept booking amount from the customers. The complainant including other allottees cannot be penalized for the delay in the aforesaid sanction of layout plans. If the opposite party chose to accept booking, on the basis of provisional sanction of the layout plan, by the Competent Authorities, it is to blame to only itself, for the delay, and not the purchasers of units. The purchaser of a plot, who had nothing to do with the sanction of the layout plan, by the Competent Authorities, cannot be penalized, by postponing the possession or registration of the plot. Similar view was taken by the National Commission in a case titled as M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Devendra Sharma & 4 Ors., Revision Petition No. 4620 of 2013, decided on 17th Dec 2015. As such, the plea raised by the opposite parties, in this regard, stands rejected.
24. Now coming to the second plea taken by the opposite party, to the effect that there was delay in grant/issuance of NOC and various permissions/ licence/clearances from various Departments like environment, irrigation, wildlife etc., it may be stated here that the same also does not merit acceptance. In our considered opinion, it is the duty of the builder, to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, referred to above, in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover/ accept the consideration money from the purchaser of the flats/plots. It is a known fact that delay occurs in obtaining various permissions from different Governmental Authorities, and this fact is well-known to the builder(s). The time normally taken, in getting such permissions, could have been contemplated by the builder, before issuing the brochure/executing agreement. It is an unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permissions/sanctions/licence to allot plot or to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.
25. During arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Party, by placing on record copies of letters dated 30.1.2012 (Annexure OP/A-1), 23.2.2012 (Annexure OP/A-2), 9.3.2012 (Annexure OP/A-3), 7.5.2012 (Annexure OP/A-4), 12.6.2012 (Annexure OP/A-5), 30.7.2012 (Annexure OP/A-6), 8.11.2012 (Annexure OP/A-7), 14.3.2013 (Annexure OP/A-8), 14.3.2013 (Annexure OP/A-9), 21.3.2013 (Annexure OP/A-10), contended that the matter was pursued with the State Government for getting NOCs/grant of licence for additional areas measuring 10.914 Acres, 18.343 Acres and 7.32 Acres. Letters dated 10.6.2013 (Annexure OP/A-11), 16.9.2013 (Annexure OP/A-12), related to seeking extension for environmental clearance. Since the copies of letters seeking clearance/NOC etc. pertained to the year 2012 and 2013, his submission that delay in approvals/clearances was a force majeure condition, which contributed to delay in completing the development/basic amenities within the time stipulated in the Agreement, does not merit acceptance, when no further communication sent to the Governmental Authorities after 2013 has been brought on record.
26. In our considered opinion, as already discussed above, it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to contemplate the period, which was likely to be taken in development of the project. It is also clear even from the documents, now placed on record, that the matter was not pursued with the Governmental Authorities after 2013. The Opposite Party was clearly deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice and these documents do not, in any way, dilute their deficiency. If the possession of plot, as also the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such reasons, and the possession thereof is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder itself is responsible for that, and it cannot take shelter under force majeure circumstances. It was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Unive rsal Ltd., III (2007) CPJ 7 (NC). In that case also, a similar plea regarding non-grant of various sanctions, approvals and certificates in respect of the DLF project, by the Government concerned, resulting into delay in delivery of possession of the unit, was raised by the Builder. However, the National Commission in that case, while brushing aside the said plea of the builder, observed and held as under:-
"The main questions which require consideration in the appeal are--
(i) Can a builder give alluring advertisement promising delivery of possession of the constructed building/flat to the purchaser/ consumer within the stipulated time, and, subsequently, on his failure, turn around and contend that as governmental permissions, such as, approval of zoning plan, layout plan and schematic building plan, were not given, the delay in construction should not be the ground for grant of compensation to the consumer? And,
(ii) Secondly, whether the consumer should suffer by paying escalation cost due to such delay?
2. In our view, it is unfair trade practice on the part of the builder to collect money from the prospective buyers without obtaining the required permissions such as zoning plan, layout plan and schematic building plan. It is the duty of the builder to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions such as sanction for construction, etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchaser of the flat/buildings.
3. Secondly, in such a case, if there is any express promise that the premises would be delivered within the stipulated time, and, if not done so, escalation cost is required to be borne by the builder."
27. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to be present case. In this view of the matter, the plea of the opposite party, to this effect, also stands rejected.
28. So far as the plea regarding grant of stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a case of Ravinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, SLP 21786-21788 of 2010, is concerned, it may be stated here that as is evident from letters dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure OP/A-13) and 30.4.2012 (Annexure OP/A-14), the said stay was granted on 19.04.2012 and was vacated on 12.12.2012. Otherwise also, the said stay was not specific to the opposite party. Directions were issued to the Government only, not to undertake construction on the land in question. At the maximum taking a stay order, as an order to the opposite party/builder also, benefit of only about 08 months period (stay granted on 19.04.2012 and vacated on 12.12.2012) can be given and not beyond that. It was not clarified by the opposite party, as to what stopped it to start construction and development work before 19.04.2012 and, thereafter, from 12.12.2012, the date when stay aforesaid was vacated. At the same time, as has been held above, if the opposite party did not take requisite approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, before launching the project, in question, it cannot take shelter under the force majeure clause, to defeat the claim of the complainant.
29. The pleas taken by the opposite party, claiming force majeure circumstances, referred to above, also deserve rejection, in the face of case titled as Ramesh Chander and another Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Private Limited, CC No.99 of 2014, decided on 29.04.2015, qua this very project, decided by the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula. In that case also, exactly similar excuses were given by the opposite party, for not starting development at the site and non-delivery of possession of the unit, to the purchasers, which were rejected by the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, by observing as under:-
"It is not disputed that the builder floated the project and they were bound to obtain all the permissions before they invite applications from public. The builder cannot raise plea that for want of certain clearances, the possession of the plot could not be delivered. When the builder invited the applications and collected huge amount from the public, they cannot delay the allotment/possession of the plot for awaiting clearances. Thus, delay/breach, if any, was on the part of the builder. The builder has not even remotely alleged any default on the part of the complainants"
30. First Appeal No.473 of 2015 filed against that order by the opposite party before the National Commission, New Delhi, was got dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 22.07.2015.
31. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record, to show that at any stage, when the project was going to be delayed, difficulties now propagated were brought to the notice of the purchasers. Clearly, the matter was not effectively taken up by the opposite party, with the Government Authorities, to expedite the sanctions etc., so that construction/ development at the project could be started. It is therefore held that by not starting the development and construction work at the site and also by not handing over possession of the unit, to the complainant by the stipulated date, mentioned in the Agreement, and even as on today, there was a material violation, on the part of the opposite party, which act amounted to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
32. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited or not. It has been held by this Commission, in preceding part of this order, that the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant, on account of its own fault, i.e. by not taking various permissions/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, well in time, as a result whereof, it was not allowed to develop the area. Even as on today, the opposite party did not give any firm date, to deliver possession of the unit, to the complainant, after development of the project. As on today, already more than 4½ years have lapsed from the date of execution of the Agreement but neither possession of the unit has been offered nor the same is in sight. The complainant has deposited a substantial amount of Rs.23,12,650/- to the opposite party, but still he did not get anything in lieu thereof. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, at the hands of the opposite party. It is therefore held that the complainant is entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.23,12,650/-, deposited by him, towards the unit, in question. It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. In the instant case, possession has not been offered till date.
33. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.23,12,650/- was paid by the complainant, to the opposite party. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite party was charging heavy rate of interest @15% p.a. as per Clause 7.2 of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). The complainant has made a prayer for refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest @24% p.a., till realization. In our considered view, the request made for, by the complainant, @24% is on the higher side. If interest @13% p.a., on an amount of Rs.23,12,650/-, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, is granted, that will meet the ends of justice.
34. In Consumer Complaints No.279 of 2015 and 280 of 2015, for plot(s), in question, Plot Buyer's Agreements were executed between the original allottees and the Opposite Party on 17.03.2012 and 03.01.2012 respectively. The complainant purchased the plot(s) and Plot Buyer's Agreements were endorsed in his favour on 15.09.2014. When the complainant purchased the plot(s), 30 months period, stipulated in the Plot Buyer's Agreements, stood lapsed. He was, therefore, well aware at that point of time about development at the site. In these two complaint cases, in our considered opinion, ends of justice would be met by refunding the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.24,79,311/- (in each case) alongwith interest @13% per annum from the date when the Plot Buyer's Agreements were endorsed in his (complainant's) favour i.e.15.09.2014.
35. In view of aforesaid position, the Opposite Party is also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him, as also escalation in prices.
36. No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, concerned.
37. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-
To refund an amount of Rs.23,12,650/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand only), for deficiency in rendering service, causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant.
Consumer Complaint No. 216 of 2015- Lt. Col. Arvind Bali (Retd.) Vs. IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd:-
To refund an amount of Rs.23,12,650/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand only), for deficiency in rendering service, causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant.
Consumer Complaint No. 239 of 2015- Bodh Raj Aggarwal Vs. Vs. IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd and Another:-
In this case, the Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-
To refund an amount of Rs.18,53,800/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only), for deficiency in rendering service, causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices. [The complainant has sought compensation in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs only].
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, to the complainant.
Consumer Complaint No. 240 of 2015- Sneh Mehta & Anr. Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd & Another:-
In this case, the Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-
To refund an amount of Rs.23,17,250/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only), for deficiency in rendering service, causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices. [The complainants have sought compensation in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs only].
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, to the complainants.
Consumer Complaint No. 241 of 2015 - Neelam Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd & Another:-
In this case, the Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-
To refund an amount of Rs.23,17,250/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only), for deficiency in rendering service, causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices. [The complainants have sought compensation in the sum of Rs.2 Lacs only].
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, to the complainants.
Consumer Complaint No. 299 of 2015- Smt. Simarjeet Kaur Saini Vs. IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd:-
To refund an amount of Rs.31,39,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac and Fifty Thousand only), for deficiency in rendering service, causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/-, to the complainant.
The payment of awarded amounts (in all the above complaints) mentioned at Sr.Nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made by the opposite party (ies), within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i), alongwith penal interest @16% p.a. instead of @13% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
Consumer Complaint No. 279 of 2015 - Teg Singh Sandhu Vs. M/s. IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd:-
To refund an amount of Rs.24,79,311/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., w.e.f. 15.09.2014 onwards.
Consumer Complaint No. 280 of 2015 - Teg Singh Sandhu Vs. M/s. IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd:-
To refund an amount of Rs.24,79,311/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., w.e.f. 15.09.2014 onwards.
[In the above two complaints, no compensation/litigation cost has been claimed.] The payment of awarded amounts (in the above two complaints i.e. CC/279/2015 & 280/2015) shall be made by the Opposite Party, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount(s) alongwith penal interest @16% per annum, instead of @13% p.a., w.e.f. 15.09.2014, till realization.
38. However, it is made clear that in a case, where the complainant(s) has/have availed loan facility from any financial institution(s), such an institution shall have the first charge on the amount to be refunded, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant(s).
39. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
40. Certified copies of the order be also placed in Consumer Complaints bearing No.216/2015, 239/2015, 240/2015, 241/2015, 279/2015, 280/2015 & 299 of 2015.
41. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
May 27, 2016 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT (DEV RAJ) MEMBER (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Ad