State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarish Shah vs Alexander John Sequeira Alias John ... on 25 September, 2017
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI - GOA
FA No. 77/2016
Mr. Amarish Shah,
55 S Hyde Ave., Apt. 116,
ISELIN, NJ, 08830,
United States of America. ... Appellant
v/s
1. Mr. Alexander John Sequeira,
alias John Sequeira, and his wife,
2. Mrs. Maria Jesus R. Sequeira,
Both residents of C-3, Milroc Heights,
Opp. Hotel Villa Sol,
Dona Paula, Goa. ... Respondents.
Shri. N. G. Kamat, Lr. Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri. A. J. R. Couto, Lr. Counsel for the Respondents.
Coram: Shri. Justice U. V. Bakre, President
Shri. Jagdish Prabhudessai, Member
Dated: 25/09/2017
ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre, President] This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/09/2016 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa (the "Forum", for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 79/2010. The Appellant was the Complainant and Respondents were the Opposite Parties (OPs) in the said Consumer Complaint. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Complaint.
2. The Complainant had filed the said Complaint for various reliefs namely:-
(a) For a direction to the OPs to provide a new, fully functional lift to the said building.2
(b) For a direction to the OPs to rectify the seepage into the Complainant's flat, through the roof slab.
(c) For a direction to the OPs to clear away the material dumped in the stilt parking slot and to provide a wash basin with tap facility.
(d) For a direction to the OPs to remove and clear away the materials stacked and to landscape the area to provide a garden in the front and rear portion of the open area of the said plot.
(e) For a direction to the OPs to execute the sale deed/s in respect of the said 2 flats and the undivided rights and interest in the plot corresponding to the said 2 flats in favour of the Complainant.
(f) For a direction to the OPs to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards the repairs/rectifications, etc, actually spent by him, with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from incurring of expenditure.
(g) For a direction to the OPs to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 1,53,460/- which the OPs have overcharged the Complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from dates of payment till date of re-payment.
(h) For a direction to the OPs to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as and by way of compensation for all the suffering, the mental trauma, agony, stress and strain suffered by the Complainants at OPs' merciless hands, and for no fault of their own.
(i) For damages of Rs. 50,000/-, to be paid to the Complainants.
(j) For costs of the Complaint.
3. Case of the Complainant is as follows:-
3The Complainant had entered into an agreement for construction and sale dated 20/03/2007 with the OPs which was duly registered with the concerned authority. The OPs had agreed to sell to the Complainant two adjoining flats bearing No. S-1 and S-2 admeasuring 129.45 square metres on the 2nd floor of the building under construction at Nagalli Hills, Dona Paulo, Goa, together with an open terrace meant exclusively for Complainant's use along with a parking slot on the ground floor with a wash basin. One of the facilities badly required by the Complainant was an elevator/lift, in view of the difficulty faced by his wife which fact was informed to the OPs and the same was assured to be provided by them. The construction was to be completed within 12 months, in all regards and ready with occupancy with provision of the elevator/lift. The total consideration payable to the OPs towards the purchase of said flats was Rs. 49,00,000/- inclusive of the cost of proportionate share in the plot. On the date of execution of the agreement, the Complainant paid to the OP a sum of Rs. 12,25,000/-. However, the construction was not completed as promised and the Complainant and his wife were forced to reside at Models Splendor which was the flat rented out for 3 months and had to spend few days at the Cidade De Goa Resort. In March 2008, the OPs asked the Complainant to shift into the said flats by assuring them that they would complete the flat and building soon. The Complainant not suspecting any foul play, shifted into the said flats on 1st March 2008. By 28/12/2009 the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 50,53,460/- to the OPs. The OPs did not hand over the de-jure possession of the said flats to the Complainant complete in all respects though the Complainant had paid to the OP more amount than due.
4. It is further alleged by the Complainant as follows:-
4After shifting to the said flats, the Complainant faced the problems of seepages, leakages, plumbing and electrical aspects and he was forced to get them fixed at his own costs, since the OPs failed and neglected to take active measures. Though the OPs held out to have obtained the Occupancy Certificate, however, they had not completed the flats, the building has not been constructed according to the plans shown to the Complainant and his wife and inter alia, even the roofing has been changed from sloping roof to a flat slab roofing style. The requests to install the elevator/lift met with no success. The OPs neglected to get the lift installed. The OPs had always held out that common area of the plot behind the building would be converted into a garden sit out, but no steps have been taken even to clean the place with the result that bushes/undergrowth have made the area a mess. Till the date of filing of the Complaint the Complainant had spent over Rs. 60,000/- to put the said flats in habitable condition and towards repairs/rectifications. In January 2010 when the Complainant broached the subject of final possession and sale deed, the OP No. 1 tried to stall by giving various excuses. The Complainant finally addressed a notice dated 8th March 2010 to the OPs by registered post A/D asking the OPs to complete all the pending works, to clear the parking slots, to clear the dogs menace and also called upon the OPs to execute the sale deed and to install a fully functional lift and provide the sloping roof as shown in the approved plans. The Complainant got the building and the flats inspected by a structural Engineer, Mr. M. S. Chauhan, former Superintending Engineer of Government of Goa and sought his written expert opinion and he gave the report dated 28/04/2010. For completion of the required works, a sum of Rs. 7,03,500/- will be required as per the estimate of the expert. Hence the Complaint.5
5. The Complainant relied upon the agreement for construction and sale dated 20/03/2007, letters dated 10/04/2008, 11/05/2008, 08/12/2008 and 08/03/2010 written by the Complainant to the OPs, inspection report of Shri. M. S. Chauhan and approved building plan as furnished by the OPs.
6. By way of written version, the OPs denied the case of the Complainant which was inconsistent with their case. The OPs specifically stated as under:-
The Complainant and his wife had decided to purchase the said two flats only after seeing the approved construction plan. It could be seen from the said approved plan that there was no provision for elevator/lift in the said building. No representations or assurances as stated by the Complainant, were made/given by the OPs. The said price of Rs. 49,00,000/- was for the two flats as shown in the approved plan along with proportionate right in the plot of land admeasuring 460 square metres, on which the said building was to be constructed and did not include any additional works or modifications. The agreement for sale was executed on 20/03/2007 and the occupancy of the flat was to be given by 20/03/2008. The flats were complete in all respects and in habitable condition by the end of February 2008 and the OPs handed over the possession of the said flats to the Complainant in the first week of March 2008 because of his request and insistence. The OPs had applied for occupancy certificate on 16/01/2008 but the same was issued by the authority on 04/04/2008 and the same was then handed over to the Complainant. When the Complainant had contacted the OPs in January 2008, the flats were almost fully completed but the Complainant had informed that he wanted the works to be done in a certain manner due to which after the arrival of the Complainant in Goa on 31/12/2017, the OPs completed the finishing works as per the wishes and 6 instructions of the Complainant. The illness of the wife of the Complainant could not be related to anything done by the OP. The Complainant and his wife were residing in a rented accommodation which was arranged by the Complainant himself. The OPs gave possession of the flats to the Complainant in March 2008 as promised. The Complainant has still to pay a lot of money to the OPs. After the inspection of flats in January 2008, the Complainant wanted further modifications in the said flats due to which the OPs had to carry out demolition and had to reconstruct some portion for which the Complainant has to pay separately. On the inconsistence of the Complainant, after he took possession of the flats, the OPs have started making provision for installation of the lift/elevator and for that purpose have already constructed a lift shaft. The OPs prepared revised plans showing the lift shaft and the plans have been presented for approval to the concerned authorities. The cost of the construction of the lift shaft would be Rs. 3,00,000/- and the cost of lift/elevator would be another Rs. 5,00,000/- thereby making total additional expenditure of around Rs. 8,00,000/-. The Complainant has to pay at least half of the said amount for the lift. It was inadvertently mentioned in schedule-V of the agreement that lift would be provided. The OPs had handed over de-facto and de-jure possession of the flats to the Complainant. The seepages are due to the works carried out by the Complainant himself for which the OPs cannot be blamed. The portion of the land behind the building does not form part of the area for which the proportionate right had been agreed to be transferred. The report of Engineer Mr. M. S. Chauhan was tailor made in order to support the requirements of the Complainant. The flats were defect - free and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.7
7. The OPs relied upon construction plan, completion certificate from engineer, occupancy certificate, list of extra works and proposed revised plan.
8. The Complainant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence and of Engineer Shri. M. S. Chauhan. The Complainant also filed affidavit-in-evidence of his wife namely Mrs. Elaine Shah. The OPs cross-examined the Complainant and his wife by way of questionnaires put to them which have been duly answered. But the expert has not been cross-examined by the OPs. The OP No. 1 filed his affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the OPs. He has been cross-examined by the Complainant by way of questionnaire, the queries in which have been duly answered by way of affidavit-in-reply. The Complainant as well as the OPs filed their written arguments before the Forum. Oral submissions were also made by the Lr. Counsel for the parties before the Forum.
9. Vide the impugned judgment, the Forum held that the OPs had completed the said flats in all respect on 01/03/2008 and had even handed over the occupancy certificate to the Complainant on 04/04/2008. The Forum further held that the OPs had charged Rs. 1,53,460/- for the extra works done by them. The Forum further held that the seepage was on account of alterations done by the Complainant himself. The Forum did not rely upon the expert report of Engineer Shri. M. S. Chauhan since no photographs showing seepages and damages were submitted along with the report. The Forum held that before accepting the occupancy certificate from the OPs, the Complainant ought to have carried out the inspection of the flats prior to receiving possession of the flats. The Forum held that the proportionate right of the entire building cannot be transferred to the Complainant and the Complainant is entitled only for the proportionate right of the purchased flats. The 8 Complaint therefore has been partly allowed with the direction to the OPs, jointly and severally, to execute a sale deed of the flats S-1 and S-2 in favour of the Complainant along with proportionate share in the property on which the building is constructed. The Complainant is aggrieved by the above judgment and order and has filed the present Appeal.
10. Records and proceedings of the Consumer Complaint No. 79/2010 were called for. Both the parties have filed written arguments before this commission. Mr. Kamat, Lr. Counsel argued on behalf of the Complainant and Mr. Couto, Lr. Counsel argued on behalf of the OPs. We have gone through the entire material on record.
11. The agreement was dated 20/03/2007. As per clause 4 of the agreement, the OPs were required to deliver the said flats for use and occupation of the Complainant within 12 months from the date of agreement along with occupancy certificate, power and water supply provided all the amounts due and payable by the Complainant were paid to the OPs. The flats have been delivered to the Complainant on 01/03/2008 i.e. a few days prior to the scheduled date and the occupancy certificate was handed over to him on 04/04/2008 i.e. a few days after the scheduled date. There is no convincing evidence on record produced by the Complainant to establish that the OPs, with ulterior motives, asked the Complainant to shift into the said flats assuring that they would complete the flats and the building soon and that the OPs had not handed over de- jure possession of the said flats to the Complete in all respects. How could the OPs get the occupancy certificate which is given only after the building to be occupied is complete in all respects and why the Complainant accepted the same on 04/04/008, if really the flats were not in habitable condition? Nobody would take delivery of the flat and accept the occupancy certificate, to 9 reside into the said flat, without the same being complete in all respects.
12. At the outset, let us consider the first prayer in the Complaint. Admittedly, no lift has been provided for the benefit of flats of the Complainant. As per clause 1 of the agreement, inter alia, the said flats no. S-1 and S-2 were to be constructed as per the specifications described in detail in Schedule V annexed to the agreement. The said Schedule V gave the building specifications for flat and it, inter alia, mentioned that a lift shall be provided. It was submitted by Lr. Counsel for the OPs that the law does not require a lift to be provided for such building. He further submitted that the body of the agreement as well as the approved plan did not mention the lift and in Schedule-V, by inadvertence, the words "Lift shall be provided" remained to be cancelled. He submitted that the Forum has clearly observed that since the Complainant had accepted the occupancy certificate from the OPs and started residing in the flats, he had agreed to the construction of the flats as per the plan. The learned Counsel for the OPs, therefore, urged that if the lift is to be provided, the Complainant will have to bear the costs for the same. I is true that the law did not require that a lift should be provided for such building. Hence the OPs could get the Occupancy certificate without provision of lift. However, nothing prevents parties to agree for provision of lift. The agreement was dated 20/03/2007. The Complainant shifted into the said flats on 01/03/2008 but the occupancy certificate was given to him on or about 04/04/2008, i.e. after the occupation of the flats by the Complainant. It may be that in terms of clause 6 of the agreement, the Complainant could not have made any grievance in respect any item of work in the said flats after crossing over one monsoon season. However, the provision of 10 lift was an item outside the flats, though, inter alia, for the benefit of the Complainant also. Soon after taking possession of the flats, by e-mail dated 10/04/2008 and further e-mails dated 11/05/2008 and 08/03/2010, the Complainant had reminded the OPs that the lift, as part of the agreement, had not been provided. But for the first time in the written version filed on 12/10/2010, the OPs alleged that there was no provision for lift in the approved construction plan and that it was inadvertently mentioned in Schedule V of the agreement that lift will be provided. Such a belated defense was nothing but an afterthought and could not be relied upon. Since clause No. 1 of the agreement specified that the flats shall be constructed as per the specifications mentioned in Schedule V annexed to the agreement and further since the recital clause No. 8 at page No. 10 of the agreement said that Schedule V annexed to the agreement formed part of the agreement, the OPs cannot be heard to contend that the lift was not provided for in the agreement.
13. The OPs have pleaded in the written version filed on 12/10/2010 that on insistence of the Complainant, after he took possession of the flats, the OPs started making provision for installation of a lift/elevator and have already constructed the lift shaft at the cost of almost Rs. 3,00,000/- and have prepared a revised plan showing the same. The Complainant took possession of the flats on 01/04/2008. But in affidavit-in-reply to the query no. 24 of the questionnaire of Complainant, the OP No. 1 stated that the Complainant made a demand for lift for the first time in July 2007. Thus, the Complainant had insisted for lift even prior to his taking possession of the flats. Again, from the above pleading of the OPs, it could be said that according to the OPs, the construction of the lift shaft was done after 01/03/2008. But in affidavit-in-reply to the queries no. 26 11 and 27 of the questionnaire of Complainant, the OP No. 1 stated that the construction of the lift shaft started in July 2007 and completed at the time of obtaining/issuing of occupancy certificate. The occupancy certificate was issued on 04/04/2008. It could not be believed that the construction of lift shaft commenced after 01/03/2008 would be completed by 04/04/2008. According to the OPs, as specifically pleaded in the written version, the flats were complete in all respects and in habitable condition by the end of February 2008. However, in affidavit-in-reply to the query no. 27 of questionnaire of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 stated that the lift shaft was constructed during the construction of the building itself and before completion thereof. Mr. M. S. Chauvan, the former Superintending Engineer for Goa, a Project Engineer and Civil Engineer (thus an expert in the field), in his report and affidavit stated that the lift/elevator, for which masonary shaft has been already made during construction of Apartments, has not been installed. In the said affidavit-in-reply to the questionnaire of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 has also admitted that the lift doors have been provided for at every floor of the building. It cannot be believed that without taking any advance money from the Complainant and other flat owners, the OPs. would make provision for lift shaft and lift doors at every floor, by spending Rs. 3,00,000/- and would prepare revised plan to be submitted to the concerned authority. In answer to query No. 18 of the questionnaire of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 replied that there was no lift shaft built at the time when the Complainant visited the site for the first time but there was a duct into which the kitchen windows of various flats opened into. The above is contrary to the approved plan since no duct is shown therein. There is even no opening on the top seen. It is also difficult to understand as to why only the Complainant should pay 50% of the costs of the lift shaft and the lift when all 12 the flat owners would get the benefit of the same. As per the agreement and as understood from the circumstances above, the consideration for the provision of lift has been already paid by the Complainant and hence the OPs cannot demand payment of 50% of costs or any amount from him. The Forum has not considered all the above factors and has thus erred in not giving relief to the Complainant with regard to the lift.
14. The second prayer in the Complaint is with regard to the seepage into the flat through the roof slab and the sixth prayer is for direction to the OPs to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the Complainant on the ground that he had incurred the said expenditure towards fixing the problems of leakages, plumbing and electrical aspects. After monsoon i.e. on 31/12/2007 the Complainant and his wife had seen the flats which according to them had not been completed by then though the super structure was complete. It is not alleged that at this time the Complainant and his wife did not notice any black spots, etc. caused to the roof slab on account of seepage. The Complainant and his wife shifted to the flats on 01/03/2008. It is not stated that this shifting was done in spite of there being seepage through the roof slab and other problems of leakages, plumbing and electrical aspects. According to the Complainant, it was after shifting into the said flats that he faced the problem with seepages, leakages, plumbing and electrical aspects. But he has not specifically stated as to after how many days or months or years he faced these problems. The Complaint has been filed on 10/10/2010, though the possession was taken on 01/03/2008. In the e-mail dated 10/10/2008, there is no mention of any problem of seepages or leakages. As per clause 6 of the agreement dated 20/03/2007, upon possession of the said flats and parking slot being delivered to the Financier/Purchaser, they shall be entitled to 13 the use and occupation of the said flats and parking slot and thereupon they shall have no claim against the Owners/Developers in respect of any item of work in said flats after crossing over one monsoon. One monsoon had crossed over before the filing of the Complaint and the problems narrated by the Complainant as above are within the flats. Hence, the Complainant cannot claim anything with regard to the above. If really the Complainant had spent Rs. 60,000/- for fixing said problems, it was done by him at his own pleasure and the OPs cannot be held liable to pay the said amount to the Complainant. Similarly, if the wife of the Complainant fell ill and the Complainant and his wife had stayed in a flat Model Splendor or at Cidade De Goa resort, that cannot be the responsibility of the OPs.
15. We shall now take up the third prayer in the Complaint. According to the Complainant, the dump of building materials, wood, etc. created by the OPs in the area reserved for parking was another eye-sore and snakes and other pests added to the miseries of the Complainant and that the pets of the OPs kept in common areas were a source of great nuisance. The OPs denied the above facts in their written version. In his affidavit- in-evidence, the Complainant stated the same facts and added that he has photographs clearly showing the same. In the same prayer (c), the Complainant also prayed for direction to the OPs to provide for a wash basin with tap facility. In the schedule V of the agreement there is mention of a garage with wash basin and water connection. Thus the Complainant was entitled for a garage with water connection and wash basin. It is true that no photographs showing the dump of building material, etc. have been produced. However, Mr. M. S. Chauhan, the expert, in his report which is supported by his own affidavit, has stated that the water connection and wash 14 basin need to be provided for at parking slot earmarked for the Complainant, as per the sale agreement, but the same have not been yet provided. He has also stated that removal of construction material and cleaning of site in general and parking area has not been done. The OPs have not filed any supporting affidavit of independent witness. As pointed out by the Lr. Counsel for the Complainant, the Forum has not at all touched this grievance of the Complainant. In view of the above oral evidence of the Complainant supported by the evidence of a Civil Engineer, the Complainant has proved the above grievance and that he is entitled to redressal of the same.
16. The fourth prayer (d) in the Complaint is regarding removal of materials stacked and landscaping of the area and providing garden in the front and rear portion of the open area of the said plot. There is no pleading in the Complaint that there was an agreement for providing a garden in the front portion of the open area of the plot. The Complainant has pleaded in paragraph 19 of the Complaint that the OPs had held out that the common area of the plot behind the building would be converted into a garden sit out but this has not been done. However, the OPs have denied the above in their written version by adding that the said portion of land behind the building does not form part of the area, the proportionate right of which was agreed to be transferred in favour of the Complainant. The expert, Mr. M. S. Chauhan, in his report has vaguely stated that land scaping/garden is yet to be done. He has not mentioned as to which clause of the agreement provides for the same or whether the approved plan shows the same. Though in clause No. 16 of the agreement it is stated that the Complainant agrees to contribute an amount, inter alia, towards maintenance of garden, however, we do not find any clause in the said agreement or in any schedule saying that a 15 garden shall be provided by the OPs either in the front or in the rear portion of the open area of the said plot. Lr. Counsel for the Complainant could not show to us any agreement in this regard. There is area statement in the approved plan. We were not shown any garden area on the approved plan. We are of the view that the claim made vide prayer (d) in the Complaint was not proved and hence rightly not granted by the Forum.
17. Vide prayer (e) in the Complaint, the Complainant had prayed for execution of the sale deed in his favour in respect of the said two flats and the undivided rights and interest in the plot corresponding to the said two flats. However, the only relief granted by the Forum directs execution of sale deed of the purchased flats S-1 & S-2 in favour of the Complainant, with proportionate share in the property on which the building is constructed. The relief granted is therefore vague.
18. Let us therefore see the agreement. Clause No. 2 of the agreement dated 20/03/2007, inter alia, provides as under:
"2. - The Owners/Developers does hereby agrees to construct the said Flat and Parking Slot together with the corresponding undivided rights in said plot to the Financier/ Purchaser agree to finance said Flat, in all respects, for a total consideration of Rs. 49,00,000/-
.(Rupees forty nine lakhs only).
..................................................................... ..................................................................... ........"
However, Clause 12 of the said agreement, inter alia, provides as under:-
"12.-The Owners/Developers shall execute the conveyance in respect of the said built up area of the Flats and its corresponding undivided share on the land of the 16 said plot, in proportion to the built up area of their respective Flat in the name of the Purchaser/Financier. ...................................."
19. The said plot No. 261, as per the agreement admeasures 460 square meters. Thus, from the interpretation of the above two clauses of the agreement, it is clear that the sale deed is to be executed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the said two Flats No. S-1 and S-2 with undivided share in the plot No. 261 admeasuring 460 square metres, corresponding to the said two flats. The relief granted by the Forum therefore needs to be modified as above.
20. Insofar as prayer (g) in the Complaint, regarding refund of Rs. 1,53,460/- along with interest, is concerned, admittedly, the sale consideration was Rs. 49,00,000/- but the Complainant has paid Rs. 50,53,460/- to the OPs. The OPs have denied that any extra amount has been paid to them. It is not the case of the Complainant that inadvertently, he paid extra amount of Rs. 1,53,460/- to the OPs. Thus, the Complainant has paid the said amount willingly to the OPs, since he was due to pay the same. The last payment was made by the Complainant to the OPs on 28/12/2009. In the notice dated 08/03/2010, the Complainant has nowhere stated that he has been overcharged in the sum of Rs. 1,53,460/- and that he is entitled to get the same back. Thus the above relief has also been rightly not granted to the Complainant.
21. Vide prayers (h), (i) and (j) in the Complaint, the Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards sufferings, mental trauma, agony, stress and strain suffered by the Complainant at the hands of the OPs, Rs. 50,000/- for damages and lastly costs of the Complaint. The Forum, though has partly allowed the Complaint, however has 17 not considered all the above three prayers and has not even stated as to why the Complainant was not entitled to any of these prayers. Entitlement of Rs. 50,000/- as damages is not proved. In our view, mainly not providing the lift and demanding further money towards providing the same and further keeping the dumped material in the stilt parking slot and not providing wash basin with tap facility there amounts to mental torture. The Complainant and his wife were made to suffer such trauma, agony, stress and inconvenience especially since his wife had difficulties and needed lift. In our view, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be adequate towards mental trauma, etc. and costs of Rs. 25,000/- would be adequate towards costs of litigation.
22. We therefore make the following:-
ORDER The impugned order stands modified as under:-
(a) The Complaint is partly allowed.
(b) The OPs shall provide a new fully functional lift to the
said building.
(c) The OPs shall clear away the material dumped in the
stilt parking slot and provide a wash basin with tap facility therein.
(d) The OPs shall execute a sale deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the said Flats S-1 and S-2 with undivided share in the plot No. 261 admeasuring 460 square metres, corresponding to the said two flats.
(e) The OPs shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
towards mental trauma, agony, stress, strain, inconvenience, etc. suffered by the Complainant at the hands of the OPs.
18(f) The OPs shall pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of the litigation.
[Shri. Jagdish Prabhudessai] [Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre]
Member President
sp/-