National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Residents ... vs Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers ... on 30 August, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 38 OF 2007 1. JAIPURIA SUNRISE GREENS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION FLAT NO 301 BLOCK 1, 19 RAJPUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES, DELHI-110054 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. JAIPURIA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 8-C HANSALAYA, 15 BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Ravi Kr. Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms. Nistha, G.M. Dated : 30 Aug 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) This complaint was instituted by Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Residents Welfare Association described as a group of consumers, who had purchased the residential flats from the OP, in its project to be developed at 12A, Ahimsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, known as Jaipuria Sunrise Greens. Annexure-A to the complaint contained the names of as many as 28 allottees on whose behalf this complaint was instituted. Thereafter, the allottees were added as well as deleted from time to time. An amended memo of parties was filed later on, giving particulars of as many as 34 allottees. Ultimately, vide order dated 26.02.2018, this Commission deleted several names from the memo of parties and directed filing of an amended memo of parties. The said amended memo of parties contains the names of 14 allottees as the complainants. Thus, now this is a complaint filed by 14 allottees of the residential flats in the above referred project of the OP.
2. Vide order dated 30.03.2016, this Commission had dismissed the complaint holding that it was not maintainable in the present Forum while giving liberty to the complainant to file either individual complaints or to approach this Commission through a voluntary consumer association or file an appropriate complaint meeting the requirements of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order of this Commission, some of the allottees approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Civil Appeal No.338 of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of this Commission and remitted the matter back to this Commission for disposal on merits. In view of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this complaint has been treated as a complaint filed u/s 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act but its scope has been restricted to 14 allottees mentioned in the memo of parties filed on 15.03.2018.
3. The OP had issued a brochure giving the highlights of the above referred project. As per the aforesaid brochure, the complex was to have a 3.5 acres of central landscaped garden and 74% of open area. Some pictures were also part of the above referred brochure, alongwith floor plans of the flats. It was inter-alia stated in the brochure that Jaipuria Group was bringing Jaipurias' Sunrise Greens and Jaipurias' Sunrise Plaza, a development of over 18 lakh sq. ft. of premium residential and commercial projects in Indirapuram, jointly with Paramount Residency Private Limited.
4. It is inter-alia stated in the Consumer Complaint that (i) installation of gas pipelines in the project was not mooted at the time of registration/booking of the flats and there was no compulsion for the allottees to avail the said facilities; (ii) Power back-up for the allottees who had booked flats vide price list dated 15.11.2004 was absolutely free; (iii) Power back-up upto 0.75 KVA was free after 15.11.2004 and there was no compulsion or agreement to have more power back-up or extra power back-up; (iv) Camera monitoring system and installation of fire-fighting and detection system was free; (v) External electrical connection charges were not payable; (vi) Club membership was free and of course, (vii) the project was to have a centrally landscaped garden in 3.5 acres of land for the allottees and 74% of the area was to be open.
5. One of the grievances of the complainants is that the OP issued a letter of demand to them in October-November, 2006 requiring them to pay for extra super area at the market rate as on the date of demand and not as on the date of registration, besides asking them to pay for the extra power back-up above 0.75 KVA, for external security gadgets, installation of gas pipelines and fire-fighting and detection and also for external electrical connection system. The said demand has been raised @ 168 per sq. ft. of super area.
6. It is alleged in the complaint that the OP is guilty of several unfair trade practices enumerated in para 18 of the Consumer Complaint.
7. The following, according to the learned counsel for the complainant, are the unfair trade practices which the complainants are aggrieved of:
(a) There is a delay in the delivery of the possession of the flats which was agreed to be one year from the date of booking of the flats. So far, even a letter of possession has not been issued.
(b) The demand of Rs.168/- (Rupees One Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) per Sq. Ft. for the facilities which were agreed to be supplied free of cost were included in the basic cost is illegal.
(c) That the installation of the gas storage tanks in the basement is dangerous and is threat to the lives of the people already living there.
(d) That the misappropriation of one and half (1.5) acres of land from the landscaped garden of three and half (3.5) acres for construction of commercial complex is illegal. This had led to crowding, congestion, restricted ventilation in the complex which are health hazards. Since the commercial complex has been raised at the front of the residential complex the ambience and the beauty of the residential complex has been spoiled and the commercial complex has become an absolute eyesore for the allottees.
(e) There is no provision of the service lifts.
(f) Lifts are not reaching the second and third basements, which have been constructed subsequently to provide more parking facility due to increase in the number of the storey.
(h) Illegal demand of the charges from Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only) to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) of the parking lot is unreasonable and exorbitant increase in the rates without any explanation.
(i) Corresponding non-increase in the carpet area after increase in the super area.
(j) Term "Technical Snag" has not been explained.
(k) Not entitled to charge for the change in the specifications without seeking consent of the allottees or bringing it to the knowledge of the allottees.
(m) The payment of Rs.5/- (Rupees Five Only) per sq. ft. for delay in possession against the charge of 24% interest for delayed payment is one-sided arbitrary and why should not opposite party pay interest instead of fixed amount on the delay of possession. Since the parking, shopping, club, storage space, servant room, swimming pool, central plaza park etc. are being constructed at the cost of the allottees and the allottees have been charged for the same as the price of the land is inclusive of these charges then how is the opposite party entitled to own or sell the same and make profits without investing anything.
(n) That the changes in terms and conditions by opposite party without taking the allottees into confidence is illegal.
8. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission with the following prayers:
To direct the opposite party to place on record the sanctioned plan of the infrastructure and approval of other facilities by the competent authorities;
To direct the opposite party to remove the commercial complex from the site or in the alternative to pay the price of approx. one and half (1.5) acres of land at the current market rate, which has been misappropriated by the opposite party for construction of the commercial complex, thereby marring the beauty and hygiene of the residential complex, reducing the open space and consequently increasing pollution in the residential area and violating the fundamental rights of the residents to live peacefully.The money so recovered from the opposite party may please be ordered to be distributed among all the allottees on pro-rata basis;
To direct the opposite party to separate the facilities of commercial complex from the residential complex;
To quash the demand of Rs. 168 (Rupees One Hundred and Sixty Eight) per sq.ft. under the garb of additional facilities which were already agreed to be provided free of cost by declaring it as null and void.
To declare the demand of payment of extra super area as illegal and not payable.
To make provision for service lifts in the whole complex.
To provide elevators up to the third basement;
To construct balconies of the same type by fixing the grill and not raising any walls on the boundaries.
To pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the price of the flat or the delayed period in handing over the possession instead of Rs.5 (Rupees Five only) per square ft. per month.
To charge either monthly maintenance charges at reasonable rate or to pay the maintain the complex from the interest earned from the interest free security deposit to be collected from the allotteess.
To remove the gas storage tank from the basement and to make alternative arrangement for the interested allottees only.
Not to force the allottees for accepting the extra facilities and same should be directed to be left at the discretion of the allottees, as the same were not agreed by the allottees at the time of booking.
To direct the opposite party to provide the free facilities as promised and advertised by the opposite party and not to charge any amount for the free facilities.
To direct the opposite party to start construction of the club and other facilities immediately as promised and agreed, since as per stand of the opposite party the residential complex is almost complete, though the claim is baseless and false.
To direct the opposite party to pay a lumpsum payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) to each of the allottees for willfully misleading the allottees 3.5 acre of central landscaped garden and 74% open area which was the prime reason for buying the flat and for the malpractices and unfair trade practices adopted by opposite parties in changing the complexion of the complex and re-designing the facilities and balconies of the complex resulting in loss of the open air and sunshine etc. To pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Only) as cost to the Legal Aid Fund established by this Hon'ble Commission.
To award cost of the complaint.
9. It is inter-alia stated in the written version filed by the OP that the residential complex has been constructed as per the plans sanctioned by Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is further alleged that some blocks were used to facilitate direct sunlight in the entire area of the complex and the central area and to compensate the same, one additional floor has been built in other towers but no facility has been squeezed. It is also claimed that it is in the discretion of the OP to add or remove any facility at the time of booking, the specifications given in the Specification Sheet at the time of allotment were only indicative and the OP could provide additional/better specifications and/or facilities due to technical reasons including the non-availability of some material of acceptable quality and price or due to popular demand or for the over-all betterment of the complex. The proportionate cost of such charges has to be borne by the allottees. It is stated that power back-up load has been increased from 0.75 KVA to approximately 3 KVA and the OP has also complied with the changes effected in law with reference to installation of fire-fighting equipment in the complex. The cost of providing different fire-fighting system has increased and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the allottees have to bear the cost of fire-fighting equipment. A reference in this regard is made to clause 9(i) of the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is alleged that gas pipeline and detection and external electrification connection have come into existence at a later date and they were not agreed to be provided free of cost at any point of time. It is also claimed that more than 600 allottees have already paid extra charges demanded by the OP. It is also alleged that the commercial complex constructed by the OP is different, distinct and separate from the residential complex and has been duly approved by Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is also claimed that permission had been obtained from the competent authority for increasing the complex from 14 storey to 18 storey. As regards lifts, it is stated that the lift goes upto second level basement but does not go to the last level due to restrictions imposed by structural designers. As regards balconies, it is stated that all the balconies have been designed as per the specifications agreed between the parties and as per the designs approved by the Architect. It is also claimed that all the earthquake resistance measures have been duly taken and the construction is earthquake resistant as per the specifications laid down by Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is also claimed that the terms of allotment did not envisage any provision for the service lifts and elevators upto the third basement cannot be allowed. It is also alleged that it is not possible to construct balconies of the same type by fixing grills and not raising any walls because the construction has to be made as per the plans approved by the Authority.
10. Vide order dated 17.07.2007, this Commission, taking note of the undertaking filed by the OP stating therein that 90% of the construction work was complete at site and the remaining work would be completed on or before 15.09.2007, directed the OP to deliver possession to the complainants thereafter, on the complainants depositing the additional amount @ Rs.168 per sq. ft. of the super area and clearance of all other dues and taxes. The possession has accordingly been delivered to the complainants and the amount of Rs.168 per sq. ft. of the super area as well as other amounts demanded by the OP has been deposited. However, no interest for the delayed payment of the basic price, no service tax and no interest on delayed payment of additional charges and on the price of the additional area has been paid. According to the complainants, there was no delay on their part in making payment of the basic sale price.
11. The sale deeds of the flats have also been executed in favour of 13 complainants, though the same were executed before the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate.
12. The first issue involved in this complaint is with respect to retention of the area of the central landscaped garden. As noted earlier, as per the brochure issued by the OP, the complex was to have 3.5 acres of central landscaped garden. As per the affidavit and report of the Architect of the OP, namely Mr. Gaurav Singla, the area of the middle softscaped area is 7441.6 sq. metres comprising 1.84 acres. Though as per his report, there is also peripheral hardscaped area upto expansion joint admeasuring 1.46 acres and peripheral hardscaped area after expansion joint admeasuring 0.33 acres, in addition to club spread over 0.13 acres, the aforesaid three areas namely peripheral hardscaped area, upto expansion joint, peripheral hardscaped area after expansion joint and the club area in my opinion, cannot be considered to be a part of the central landscaped garden. A 3.5 acres of central landscaped garden would mean a garden in the center of the complex which is fully landscaped. Therefore, the OP ought to have provided a central landscaped garden having area admeasuring 3.5 acres. Since peripheral hardscaped areas and club building area cannot be considered to be part of the central landscaped garden, obviously, there is a shortfall to the extent of 1.66 acres of the landscaped garden. Had the OP provided a central landscaped garden admeasuring 3.5 acres, the residents of the residential flats would have been able to enjoy that much of the green area for all times to come. Since they have been deprived of the central landscaped green area to the aforesaid extent, they need to be suitably compensated for the said loss suffered by them.
13. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that even as per the report of the Architect of the complainants, the area of the central landscape garden is 1.87 acres. However, I need no go into the question as to what exactly is the extent of the area of the central landscape garden whether it is 1.71 acres as per the report of the Architect of the opposite party or it is 1.87 acres, as per the report of the Architect of the complainants, since I propose to award a flat compensation to the complainants for the loss of the aforesaid green area.
The next question which arises for consideration is as to how much should be quantum of compensation payable to the complainants for the loss of the green area. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the compensation should be based upon the market price of the land on the date of filing of the complaint or on the date of decision of the complaint, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the aforesaid market value can have no bearing on the quantum of compensation when the opposite party had purchased developed land from Ghaziabad Development Authority @ Rs.3.72 crores per acre. The compensation under the Consumer Protection Act has to commensurate with the loss suffered by the consumer and it has to be kept in mind that the loss suffered by the complainants was the reduction in the green area available to the residents of the complex. It can hardly be disputed that a bigger green area would have resulted in better quality of life for them on account of the higher green area being available to them, but the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that there was no material loss as such to the complainants on account of reduction in the green area. The cost of the land which the opposite party utilized for other purposes instead of including it as a part of the central landscape garden, at the rate at which it was allotted to the opposite by Ghaziabad Development Authority would come to about Rs. 6,36,67,404/-. Considering the total saleable area of the residential flats, the cost per sq. ft. of the super area comes to Rs.38.71 per sq. ft. However there will also be some cost of developing the said land into green area. This factor also has to be taken into account while determining the compensation. Therefore, in my opinion, the complainants should be awarded compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft. of the super area of their respective flats for the loss of the green cover on account of reduction in the size of the central landscape garden.
14. As far as the extent of the open area in the complex is concerned, the report of the Architect of the opposite party would show that the open area is about 81%. Therefore, there is no reduction in the above area available in the complex. Though, as per the report of the architect of the complainants, the open area is only 2.83 acres, the said figure, according to the learned counsel for the complainants refers to the open area available to the residents and does not refer to the open area available in the other parts of the complex such as commercial complex.
15. The report of the Architect of the opposite party would show that the residential area has been constructed only on 797.56 sq. mtr. and it has residential storage of 2102.45 sq. mtr. The total area comes to 12492.53 sq. mtr. after including the commercial area such as commercial under residential and commercial in stilt, commercial block SA and commercial block SB. The open area in the residential as per the aforesaid report comes to 81.47%, which is much more than 74% whereas the open area in the whole of the complex, including residential commercial part of the complex comes to 77.2%. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that there is no shortfall in the open area.
The additional demand raised by the opposite party pertains to super area as well as the charges for:
Power back up above 0.75 KVA by seeing future requirements Additional security gadgets other than camera monitoring system Installation of gas pipeline Installation of firefighting and detections system External electrical connection charges.
16. As far as demand on account of increase in super area is concerned, the only grievance raised in the complaint is with respect to the price at which the complainants have to pay for the additional super area. The learned counsel for the complainants states that there was no actual increase in the super area and therefore, the whole demand towards price of the increased super area is unjustified. I however, cannot accept the said contention since there is no specific averment in the complaint that there was no increase in the super area. Rather the plea taken in the complaint is with respect to the price which the opposite party has to charge for the increased super area. I am however in agreement with the complainants that they cannot made to pay for the increase in super area at the enhanced price and are liable to pay only at the price at which the flats were originally allotted to them. I therefore, hold that the complainants are liable to pay for the increased super area only at the price at which the flats were initially allotted to them. The learned counsel for the opposite party states that in fact, they have raised demand at the price at which the flats were initially allotted and have also given some discount over that. If this is so, the whole of the demand towards cost of the increase in super area would be fully justified.
17. Admittedly, in respect of seven complainants, namely, M.C. Bahuguna, Yogesh Kumar Balaine, Rajesh Kumar, Pawan Chhabra, Juanita Nidhindra, Rajeev Gupta & Gaurav Gupta, the entire power back up is free of cost to them. As far as the remaining complainants are concerned, as per the price list made available to them, power back up was free upto 0.75 KVA. The aforesaid clause would imply that the power back up could go beyond 0.75 KVA but it would be free upto the extent of 0.75 KVA in respect of those allottees. The learned Counsel for the complainants states that no consent of these complainants was taken in providing power back up higher than 0.75 KVA. IN my view, no such consent was required since the price list itself envisaged that the power back up could go beyond 0.75 KVA. In any case, the allottees having utilized the power back up beyond 0.75 KVA and the builder having not provided the said higher power back up gratuitously, they must pay for the same in view of the provision under Section 70 of the Contract Act. I, therefore, hold that the complainants other than seven complainants whose names are referred above, are required to pay for the additional power back up provided by the opposite party.
18. As per the price list, camera monitoring with door phones, intercom and EPABX system was free in all apartments. In addition to the above referred gadgets, only boom barriers are stated to have been installed in the complex by the opposite party. Since the boom barriers are not specific to individual apartments and are meant for the whole of the complex, no cost for the said boom barriers is payable. In any case, the opposite party has not demanded any particular amount towards cost of only boom barriers. Therefore, I hold that no additional payment is required to be made towards additional security gadgets. The expenditure on the boom barriers, in my opinion is not covered under clause 9 (ii) of the allotment letters.
19. As far as the gas pipeline is concerned, admittedly, there was no contract between the parties for installation of gas pipe line which was meant to carry LPG to the individual apartments. In any case the said gas pipe line is not being used by the allotttees who have got installed PNG gas pipe line from IGL for providing PNG to their apartments. The learned Counsel for the opposite party relies upon clause 6 of the allotment letter in support of his contention that the opposite party could provide the Indane gas pipe line without any request from the allottees in this regard. The aforesaid clause deals with specifications and additional/better facilities, due to technical reasons including non-availability of certain material of acceptable quality and price or due to popular demand or for reasons for over-all development of complex/ individual unit and, therefore, does not include the provisions for LPG pipeline.
20. As far as the cost of installation of fire-fighting and detection system is concerned, though the allotment letter duly signed by the complainants does provide for extra payment of the expenditure in obtaining clearance from the Fire Officer and provision of fire-fighting system equipment, as per the statutory requirements, the aforesaid clause is contrary to clause 8 of the terms & conditions of the allotment forming part of the application form wherein it was clearly stated that safety measures had been provided as per existing fire safety code/Regulations. Even the price list on the basis of which bookings were made by the complainants did not stipulate any extra payment towards the cost of fire-fighting equipment. In fact, no project of this nature can be approved without providing the prescribed fire-fighting equipment. The case of the complainants is that the opposite party unilaterally imposed several new terms & conditions in the allotment letters issued after booking of flats by them and after receiving substantial payment from them. Considering that neither the application form nor the price list provided for extra payment towards the cost of fire-fighting equipment, I hold that the complainants are not liable to pay to the opposite party for installation of fire-fighting and detection system. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that the allotment letter being a contract between the parties and being a subsequent contract must govern the rights and obligations of the parties. However, considering that the said terms & conditions was contrary to the terms & conditions contained in the application form and no extra charges for the fire-fighting and detection system was stipulated in the price list, I have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid term was unilaterally imposed by the opposite party and was accepted by the allottees, under coercion. They having already made substantial payment, the complainants had no option but to sign on the dotted lines. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the opposite party.
21. As far as the external electrification charges are concerned, clause 9 (iv) of the allotment letter duly signed by the complainants does provide for payment of the cost of the said charges. However, in the terms and conditions forming part of the application form submitted by the complainants, there was no term requiring payment of the said charges. Even the price list also does not stipulate payment of external electrification cost as one of the extra charges though several extra charges were specifically mentioned in the said price list. The contentions of the learned Counsel for opposite party is that (i) there is a specific contract in the form of allotment letter, for payment of the cost of external electrification charges; (ii) there is no contract/term for not charging the cost of external electrification and in the price list with effect from 12.10.2006, the opposite party had expressly included the external electrification charges in the basic sale price, which is indicative that the said charges were not included in the basic sale price shown in the earlier price list. I, however, find no merit in the said contention. The external electrification of a complex is an essential and integral part of the development of a project and no project can be developed without external electrification. Therefore, ordinarily, the cost of external electrification would be in-built in the cost of the flat itself and would not be payable additionally unless, otherwise agreed by the allotted. In the terms & conditions forming part of the application form, there was no provision for extra payment of the cost of external electrification. Had the allottees to pay the cost of external electrification in addition to the basic price of the flat, it would have been expressly stated so either in the application form or in the price list on the basis of which the bookings were made. This is more so when the price list did refer to several extra charges. Though, the allotment letter does constitute a contract between the parties, as noted earlier, the complainants had no option but to execute the same as per the terms & conditions unilaterally decided by the opposite party, they having already made part payment to the opposite party and knowing fully well that in the event of their not signing the allotment letter as per the terms & conditions stipulated by the opposite party, atleast earnest money was likely to be forfeited by the opposite party, causing substantial financial loss to them. I, therefore, hold that the cost of external electrification is not payable by the complainants as extra charge.
22. The learned Counsel for the complainant is not pressing the prayer with respect to removal of gas storage tank from the basement.
23. As far as making provision for service lifts is concerned, there was no agreement between the parties for providing such lifts. Therefore, no such relief can be provided to the complainants.
24. As far as providing elevators upto 3rd basement is concerned, again, the opposite party never promised to provide elevators upto 3rd basement of the complex, therefore, no direction for providing elevators upto 3rd basement can be issued.
25. This is also a grievance of the complainants that the flats of the complainants do not have a direct view of the green area/ open area, on account of another tower having been constructed in front of their balconies. Of course, they admit that there is a space between the balconies of the complainants and other towers built by the opposite party. I find no commitment from the opposite party that all the flats will have a direct view of green area/ open stretch of the complex. Therefore, I see no substance in the aforesaid grievance of the complainants.
26. The learned Counsel for the complainants relying upon the report of the District Magistrate dated 25.9.2010 and the affidavit filed by the complainants seeks compensation for several defects in the construction of houses. However, no compensation specifically for the said defects has been claimed in the complaint, presumably because the complaint was instituted in the year 2007 whereas the above referred report of the District Magistrate is of September, 2010. Therefore, the complainants are at liberty to take such action as may be open to them as per law on account of the aforesaid alleged defects in the building. Though, the learned Counsel for the complainants refers to the prayer clause 14 while seeking compensation for the aforesaid defects in the building, in my view, clause 14 of the prayer clause, when read with averments made in the complaint, does not cover compensation for the aforesaid alleged defects. Therefore, the complainants cannot be granted compensation in respect of the aforesaid alleged defects in this complaint.
27. The learned Counsel for the Complainants states that stilt parking below the residential flats has been converted into commercial shops. However, there are no such allegations in the complaint. Therefore, the aforesaid plea cannot be entertained.
28. The last prayer by the learned Counsel for the complainants is with respect to payment of compensation for the delay in delivery of possession of flats. It is not in dispute that there has been delay in delivery of possession. It is also not in dispute that possession of the flats was delivered to the complainants pursuant to an interim order of this Commission and by that time requisite occupancy certificate had not been obtained. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the complainant should be awarded compensation upto the date on which occupancy certificate was obtained. However, considering that the complainants obtained possession on their own request and pursuant to an interim order of this Commission and also the fact that they do not claim not to have used the flats till the occupancy certificate was obtained, the complainants in my opinion should get compensation only till the date the sale deeds were executed in favour of the complainants.
29. One of the complainants, namely, Gulshan Juneja has not deposited the stamp duty and has not got the sale deed executed in his favour. He will be paid compensation till 17.1.2009 when the sale deeds in favour of several other complainants executed.
30. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is directed to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. to the complainants for the period the possession has been delayed i.e. from the date committed by the opposite party for the delivery of possession till the date of execution of the sale deeds, on the entire amount which they had deposited with the opposite party on or before the committed date of possession. No other contention has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainants, who is being instructed by two complainants.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER