State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Anita Sharma vs The U K Homes Pvt. Ltd. on 18 May, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 202 of 2015 Date of Institution : 02.09.2015 Date of Decision : 18.05.2016 Mrs. Anita Sharma wife of Sh.Rajinder Pal Sharma, daughter of Sh.Amar Nath, resident of House No.888/1, Kushal Vihar Colony, Nabha, Distt. Patiala (Punjab). ......Complainant V e r s u s M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its Managing Director Udey Raj Singh Brar son of Sh.Jagwant Singh Brar, resident of Village Samondgarh Chhana, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab. Email:[email protected] 2nd Address:- M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its Managing Director Udey Raj Singh Brar son of Sh.Jagwant Singh Brar, resident of Village Mithukhera, Tehsil Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. 3rd Address:- M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its Managing Director Udey Raj Singh Brar son of Sh.Jagwant Singh Brar, resident of House No.30, Mohindra Complex, Patiala, Punjab. M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its CMD Sh.Amarjit Singh, resident of House No.3166/1, Ram Bagh Colony, Rupnagar. 2nd Address:- M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its CMD Sh.Amarjit Singh, resident of Satluj House, College Road, Ropar, Punjab. M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its Manager/Director Kashmir Singh, Village Gopalpur, Block Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar, Punjab. M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its Director Prehlad Gulati, resident of House No.338, Vikas Nagar, Street No.6, Rajpura Town, Patiala, Punjab. 2nd Address:- M/s U.K. Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Capital Greens), through its Director Prehlad Gulati, c/o Gulati Bhawan, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh. M/s Urban Umbrella Development and Management Company (Capital Greens), through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Mr. Neeraj Saxena, SCO No.30, Industrial Area, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab. .... Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.R.M. Dutta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for opposite party no.1 Opposite party no.2 exparte vide order dated 10.03.2015.
Opposite party no.3 exparte vide order dated 11.02.2016.
Service of opposite party no.4 dispensed with vide order dated 11.02.2016.
Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.5.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT This complaint has been filed against five opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.03.2015, when after filing written statement, none appeared on its behalf. Opposite party no.3 was also proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.02.2016. Opposite party no.4 was given up. Contest remains between the complainant and opposite parties no.1 and 5.
It has been alleged by the complainant that she booked a plot, measuring 250 square yards, with the opposite parties, in their project, namely Capital Greens, Zirakpur Patiala Highway, Village Karala and Khizargarh, Tehsil Banur, District Mohali, Punjab. Price of the plot was fixed @Rs.12,750/- per square yard. Vide cheque dated 19.02.2013, an amount of Rs.7 lacs was paid and application/allotment letter was executed between the parties. It is further submitted that, in all, upto 22.03.2014, in five installments, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.18,07,500/-, to the opposite parties, towards price of the plot. The amount paid would amount to about 60% of the total sale consideration. All the payments made are admitted on record, by opposite party no.1. It is her further case that, thereafter, she was made to sign application for allotment, for above said plot, which was countersigned by a representative of the opposite parties. The said letter is nothing, but an allotment letter, in which total payments to be paid and the manner of making payments is clearly mentioned. This allotment application talks of basic price, EDC, IDC, IFMS and other charges. It also depicts, as to how much amount stood paid by the complainant upto the date, when above said allotment application was signed. (In a very clever manner, no date was put on the said allotment application).
Reading of the contents of the terms and conditions of the said allotment application makes it very clear that it was virtually the Buyer's Agreement signed between the parties. The said application is available on record at page 31-A of the file. In Clause 8, it is specifically stated that possession of the plot will be delivered within 24 months with 6 months grace period, failing which there was a provision to pay penalty for delayed period. It is also stipulated that the charges towards registration etc. of the plot will be borne by the applicant. It was further mentioned in the said allotment application that the allotment of plot made is purely tentative one and opposite party no.1 reserves its right not to allot any residential plot to the complainant. It is further stated in Clause 24 that lay out plans were not sanctioned by the Director Town and Country Planning, Punjab. Only Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate has been granted. In Clause 25 of the allotment application it is stated that in case of dispute, the matter will be referred to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by the Company. With the allotment application, detailed plan of the project was annexed and further details of the property, in which the project was to be developed was also placed on record. The total project area was 25 acres of land. Copy of Jamabandi annexed with the allotment application makes it very clear that the Company was not owner of any piece of land. It was also so said in a certificate Annexure C-19 dated 20.05.2013 issued by Naib Tehsildar, Banur.
It is case of the complainant that when despite making payment, no development was visible at the site, she sent a legal notice dated 05.06.2015 to opposite party no.1, seeking refund of the amount paid alongwith interest @24% p.a. When she failed to get any positive response, she filed this complaint, before this Commission, on 02.09.2015.
During pendency of this complaint, by moving an application, numerous documents were placed on record, to show that the CLU certificate was granted in favour of the opposite parties, only on 13.02.2013, against an application moved on 07.02.2013, subject to many conditions. The CLU certificate was valid only for the period of two years, from the date of issuance (as per Clause 1 of the CLU). It was also mentioned that the applicant shall develop the site after taking a licence, under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA). Obtaining NOCs from the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), Ministry and Forest Department, Govt. of India, and many other conditions were imposed vide the CLU granted. As has been noticed above, when CLU was granted, not even an inch of land was shown as ownership of opposite party no.1. It appears that by putting on record some consent letter of the owners of land, CLU was got issued. In Clause 25 of the CLU it was specifically stated that the plots will be sold only after getting mutation of total land, in the name of promoter/developer and not otherwise. Obtaining of permission of the Competent Authority, under Section 143 (2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 2006, was also imposed as one of the conditions.
It is case of the complainant that in violation to the conditions imposed, when granting CLU to opposite party no.1 on 13.02.2013, the entire project was virtually sold, before that.
Upon notice to the averments made, reply was filed by opposite parties no.1 and 5. Other opposite parties failed to contest this complaint, in the manner, referred to, in first paragraph of this order. Opposite party no.1 stated that the complainant had only applied for allotment of a plot. No assured allotment was made and, as such, she was only an investor and not a consumer. By stating as above, it was averred that the consumer complaint was not maintainable. Payments made by the complainant were admitted. It was stated that the complaint was premature. To say so, reliance was placed on Clause 15 of the allotment letter Annexure R1/1, showing that possession was to be handed over within 18 to 24 months, from the date of signing of the Plot Buyer's Agreement. It was said that the said Agreement was not got signed from the complainant, for want of making full payment. It was further stated that as per Clause 25 of the allotment letter, in case of dispute, matter needs to be referred to an Arbitrator and the present complaint was not maintainable. It was averred that development at the site was in progress. Permissions were taken from the competent Authorities in terms of conditions imposed in CLU dated 13.02.2013. It was prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.
In the same manner, it was stated by opposite party no.5 that it acquired only the development and management rights of the project, by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 13.01.2015. It was further stated that in case of litigation, entailing refund of amount already received, it is the responsibility of opposite party no.1 to make the payment. It was further stated that the MOU was for a period of two years, from the date of its signing and during this period, opposite party no.5 was to make payment to opposite parties no.1 to 4 and original land owners, as per Annexure-B attached with the MOU dated 13.01.2015. In response to MOU mentioned above, an amount of Rs.55 lacs was paid to opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Rs.75 lacs to the owners of the land. In a way, it is stated that as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party no.5, as such, no relief can be granted against it.
The parties concerned, led evidence, in support of their case.
We have heard Counsel for the complainant, opposite parties no.1 and 5, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
At the time of arguments, similar pleas as were taken by the parties concerned, in their written statement were raised to defeat the rights of each other.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties concerned, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that it is a case, where the complainant was duped by an unscrupulous realtor, by selling her a plot, in contravention to the terms and conditions posed vide CLU certificate dated 13.02.2013. Even as on today, as per the certificate given by the Tehsildar concerned, not even an inch of land stands in the name of opposite party no.1. There is nothing on record to show that when the plot was sold, necessary permissions were taken from PPCB, Ministry and Forest Department, Govt. of India, and from various other competent Authorities. It is specifically mentioned in the CLU that plots will be sold only after getting ownership of land transferred, in favour of opposite party no.1 and not otherwise. As per established law, a realtor can sell its property, only when necessary permissions are available with it. 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, it was 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."
The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to be present case. Furthermore, it is apparent on record, that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.18,07,500/- within a short span of time i.e. from 19.02.2013 to 22.03.2014. Reading of contents of application for allotment, makes it clear that it is virtually a Buyer's Agreement signed between the parties. It refer to all the details including basic sale price of the plot, EDC, IDC and other charges, payable against the property; terms and conditions to make payment etc. It also envisaged that possession will be delivered within a period of 24 months with six months grace period. It is also stipulated in the document/allotment application Annexure C-14 (page 31-A) that in case of non-delivery of possession within the stipulated period, penalty shall be paid by the opposite parties. It is further stated that in case of dispute, matter will be referred to an Arbitrator. It leaves no doubt, while going through the terms and conditions mentioned at Sr. No.1 to 25 annexed with allotment application, that it was an Agreement of Sale executed between the parties. However, in a clandestine and clever manner, no date was put on the said allotment application, but, on reading of page 31-B of the file, it appears that the said allotment application was executed after 22.03.2014, as it gives detail of the amount already paid by the complainant. By offering allotment application/Agreement for signing, after such a long time, is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deserves to be deprecated.
It was specifically stated by the complainant in para no.4 of her complaint that even after about having more than one year passed, there was no development at the site. Relevant part of the said para reads thus:-
"That the complainant also visited the spot for inquiring about the whereabouts of the current progress status, but the complainant was surprised to see that the number of plots have not been mentioned at the spot and the work in respect of other basic necessities for regularization human life like roads, electricity, water etc. have not been completed. That the plot promised to be allotted is also situated at a far off place than the promised one at the time of application and moreover it also transpired that the OPs were not registered owners in possession of land allotted to the complainant".
To the averments made in this paragraph of the complaint, reply was filed by opposite party no.1. It was only said that development process was in progress. However, no certificate of any qualified engineer was provided stating as to how much development has taken place at the site; whether by the time when reply was filed i.e. on 20.01.2016, sewerage lines, water lines, electricity lines, storm water lines stood laid or not; whether electric connection to provide electricity to the plot owners exists at the spot or not; whether roads stood constructed etc. Nothing has been proved on record. No photographs of the site, to show development were placed on record. As such, it can safely be said that even when reply was filed by opposite party no.1, there was no development at the site and false promises were made.
It is not in dispute that the CLU, in question, was issued only for a period of two years, which had expired in the month of February 2015. Whether thereafter, it was got extended or not, is also not clarified by opposite party no.1. Vide order dated 10.03.2016, it was ordered by this Commission, as under:-
"Opposite Party No.1 is directed to place, on record, affidavit of some responsible person, clarifying, 'When the project was advertised for sale?. Whether by that time, Change of Land Use (CLU) stood granted to Opposite Party No.1 or not?. It be further clarified that 'Whether plots were sold after complying with the conditions imposed in the Change of Land Use (CLU) issued on 13.02.2013?; Whether the said Change of Land Use (CLU) still survives or not?."
Opposite party no.1 was directed to file an affidavit stating when the project was advertised for sale?; On what date the CLU was granted; whether it is valid today or not; and whether conditions imposed in the CLU dated 13.02.2013 were complied with, before making sale of the plots or not.
In response thereto, an affidavit of Sh.Uday Raj Singh Brar has been filed. No clear-cut answer has been given, whether CLU is valid on the date, when affidavit was filed. To say that it was valid, reliance was placed upon one letter dated 20.04.2016, which was placed on record on 17.05.2016. We have perused that letter issued by Senior Town Planner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. It only indicates that on an application moved, address of opposite party no.1 was noted and reflected in the CLU already granted. It was further stated that rest of the conditions and contents of letter dated 13.02.2013 shall remain intact. There is nothing on record to show that CLU dated 13.02.2013 survives uptill the date of hearing of the arguments. Qua ownership of the land, findings have already been given that even till the date of filing written statement, not even an inch of land stands in the name of opposite party no.1.
As per information gathered at the time of arguments, large number of complaints filed by the allottees, seeking refund of amount deposited, from opposite party no.1, are pending consideration before the District Consumer Forums. In many cases, judgments have been passed against it, ordering refund of the amount paid. Thus, it can safely be said that the opposite parties are habitual defaulters and, as such, their act and conduct amounted to deficiency in providing service and unfair trade practice.
To defeat the claim of the complainant, it was contended by Counsel for opposite party no.1 that no Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties, also there was no firm allotment made, as such, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. She was only an investor. To say so, reliance was placed by him, upon the judgments of National Commission, titled as Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Another Vs. Krishan Pal Chander, 2010 (1) CPJ 99 (N.C.) and Kamlesh Gulati Vs. HUDA and another, Revision Petition No.752 of 2011, decided on 07.04.2015. We have perused those judgments. Those were cases, in which public Authorities have floated schemes to allot plots. The complainants therein filed applications for allotment. As per the procedure adopted for allotment, their applications were not approved and under those circumstances, it was said that they were not the consumers. There is nothing on record to show that they were made to make part payments towards price of the plots. However, in the present case, it is an admitted fact, that the complainant has paid substantial amount of Rs.18,07,500/- towards price of the said plot. As discussed in earlier part of this order, the allotment application is nothing but a Buyer's Agreement signed between the parties. Reading of contents thereof indicates that it was a complete contract of sale between the parties. It mentions everything qua price of the plot; payment schedule; within how much time, possession is to be delivered and if not delivered penalty for the period of delay. It was further provided in it, that in case of dispute, matter will be referred to an Arbitrator. Otherwise also, it is settled principle of law that the moment, the purchaser booked a flat/plot, and deposited booking amount, towards the same, the builder(s)/opposite parties, started rendering service to him/her. In Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Anr. Vs. A.V. Ramakrishna, III (1994) CPJ 137 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that a potential user who applied for the allotment of a flat/plot, and deposited the registration fee, fell within the definition of a consumer, as the Opposite Parties started rendering service, to him/her, right from the day, the application for the same was moved. Not only this, in Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, 2013 (3) Recent apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 528 (S.C.)= 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 980 (S.C.), it was held that by making applications, for allotment of land, the Societies would be deemed to have hired or availed of the services of the Chandigarh Administration, and the Board, in relation to housing construction, as elucidated and explained in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, Civil Appeal No.6237 of 1990 = III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)= AIR 1994 787=1994 SCC (1) 243. In Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Avtar Singh and Others, 2010 (4) RCR Civil 579 SC, the same principle of law, was laid down. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable, to the instant case. The complainant, thus, hired the services of the opposite parties, as a potential user, for consideration, and, thus, she fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The submission of Counsel for opposite party no.1, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected As noted above, it has been wrongly stated by Counsel for opposite party no.1 that no allotment letter or Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties, in respect of the said plot, as such, the complainant would not fall within the definition of consumer. However, he took a somersault and raised a contrary plea, by placing reliance upon Clause 25 of the terms and conditions annexed with the allotment application that in case of dispute, matter needs to be referred to an Arbitrator and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. We are not going to agree with this contention. Above fact itself goes to show that the Agreement to Sell exists between the parties. Besides as above, we are not going to accept this argument, in view of the judgment passed by this Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016 and Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Complaint no.198 of 2016, decided on 04.04.2016, wherein this issue was dealt, in detail, while referring various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the National Commission, New Delhi, and also Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ultimately it was held by this Commission that even 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 jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was also so said by the National Commission, recently, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
"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."
In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, passed by the National Commission and this Commission, the arguments raised by Counsel for opposite party no.1, stands rejected.
Now we will deal with the contention raised by Counsel for opposite party no.5 that no relief can be granted against it, as there was no privity of contract between it and the complainant. We are not going to agree with the above said contention. It is apparent from the record that that the MOU was entered into between the opposite parties on 13.01.2015. All the rights of the property were purchased by opposite party no.5 from opposite party no.1, for an amount of Rs.39 crores. The said document has been placed on record as Annexure R-5/1. It is specifically mentioned that opposite party no.5 was to undertake total project rights including complete land rates with sales, marketing, execution of agreement to sell and development of plots/units till possession [see page 154 Clause (1)]. No doubt, it is mentioned that sale amount received by opposite party no.1, in case of order of refund, will be the sole responsibility of opposite party no.1 only. On the above said condition only, no relief can be given to opposite party no.5, as on today. The MOU was valid for two years. The details, how payment is to be made, is given in Annexure B, which is attached with the MOU. Some payments also stood made by opposite party no.5 to opposite party no.1 and the land owners, upon whose land, the project is being developed. Thus, in these circumstances, opposite party no.5 is equally held responsible to refund the amount paid by the complainant.
The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited with interest and if yes, at what rate. The amount of Rs.18,07,500/- i.e. more than 60% of the sale consideration was deposited by the complainant, in respect of the plot, in question. The complainant was deprived of her hard earned money, to the tune of Rs.18,07,500/- on the basis of misleading information, given by the opposite parties, that she would be handed over legal physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months with six months grace period. However, later on, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that even the land, on which, the plot was allotted to her, does not belong to the opposite parties. The complainant was, thus, caused financial loss and was also deprived of a house to be constructed by her on the said plot. Hard earned money, deposited by the complainant, was utilized by the opposite parties, for a number of years. Had this amount been deposited by the complainant, in some bank, or had she invested the same, in some business, she would have earned handsome returns thereon. In case of delay, in deposit of installment(s), the opposite parties had been charging interest @18% P.A., from the complainant, as per Clause 12 of the allotment application/Buyer Agreement. It is, therefore, held that opposite parties no.1 and 5, by neither delivering possession of the unit, nor, in the alternative, refunding the amount to the complainant, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to the refund of an amount of Rs.18,07,500/- alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits.
The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to 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 her, on account of the act and conduct of the opposite parties, referred to above. It may be stated here, that according to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant. The word 'compensation' is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award the value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling the Consumer Foras, to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of 'compensation'. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumer to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainant. The Commission or the Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. Similar principle of law was laid down, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65. In the instant case, after making payment of Rs.18,07,500/-, possession thereof, was not even in site, what to speak of delivery thereof. The complainant purchased the said unit, with the hope to have a roof over her head alongwith with her family members, after constructing a house thereon but her hopes were dashed to the ground. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the opposite parties, for which she is required to be compensated.
No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the complainant, opposite party no. 1 and 5.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-
To refund the amount of Rs.18,07,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization.
To pay compensation amount, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, to the complainant, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to her at their hands.
To deposit compensation amount, by way of damages, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, directly, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, in favour of Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, Consumer Legal Aid Account (Saving Bank Account No.32892854721 (IFSC: SBIN0003246).
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.55,000/-to the complainant.
The amounts mentioned at Clauses (i) to (iv) above shall be paid by the opposite parties, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) shall carry penal interest @21% P.A., instead of 18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and interest @18% P.A., on the amounts, mentioned in Clauses (ii) to (iv), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
18.05.2016 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.