State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Shalini Singh vs M/S Ansal Properties And Infrastruture ... on 28 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/380/2018 ( Date of Filing : 06 Nov 2018 ) 1. Mrs. Shalini Singh W/O Sri SAnjay Singh R/O 1/101 Vinay Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastruture Ltd Registered Office at 115 Ansal Bhawan 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi 110001 Through its M.D. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 28 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement राज्य उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग , उत्तर प्रदेश , लखनऊ। सुरक्षित परिवाद सं0- 380/2018 श्रीमती शालिनी सिंह पत्नी श्री संजय सिंह, निवासी 1/10, विनय खण्ड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ। ........... परिवादिनी। बनाम 1.
मै0 अंसल प्रौपर्टीज एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लि0, रजिस्टर्ड आफिस 115 अंसल भवन, 16, कस्तूरबा गांधी मार्ग, नई दिल्ली - 110001.
2. ब्रान्च हैड/अधिकृत हस्ताक्षरी मै0 अंसल प्रौपर्टीज एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लि0, प्रथम तल, वाईएमसीए कैम्पस, 13, राणा प्रताप मार्ग, लखनऊ-226001. वर्तमान पता द्वितीय तल, शॅापिंग स्क्वायर-2, सैक्टर-डी, शहीद पथ, सुल्तानपुर रोड, सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी, लखनऊ-226030.
................. विपक्षीगण।
समक्ष:-
1. मा0 श्री राजेन्द्र सिंह, सदस्य।
2. मा0 श्री विकास सक्सेना, सदस्य।
परिवादिनी की ओर से उपस्थित: श्री ए0के0 श्रीवास्तव विद्वान अधिवक्ता एवं उनके सहयोगी अधिवक्ता श्री विजय कुमार तिवारी।
विपक्षीगण की ओर से उपस्थित :कोई नहीं।
दिनांक :- 05-01-2024.
मा0 श्री राजेन्द्र सिंह , सदस्य द्वारा उदघोषित निर्णय परिवादिनी श्रीमती शालिनी सिंह द्वारा यह परिवाद अन्तर्गत धारा-17 उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम 1986, विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध योजित किया गया है।
संक्षेप में परिवादिनी का कथन है कि विपक्षी मै0 अंसल प्रौपर्टीज एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लि0 द्वारा परिवादिनी के प्रति की गयी सेवा में कमी एवं अनुचित व्यापार संव्यवहार के सम्बन्ध में यह परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया गया है, जिसमें विपक्षी भूखण्ड का अध्यासन समय के अन्दर देने में असफल रहा है। विपक्षी कम्पनी सुल्तानपुर रोड, लखनऊ पर एक हाईटेक टाउनशिप का विकास कर रही थी, जो 1765 एकड़ में फैली है। यह देखते हुए कि विपक्षी को लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा स्वीकृति मिल चुकी है और साथ ही साथ भूमि का कब्जा भी मिल चुका है, एक श्रीमती सुषमा शिवहरे पत्नी श्री रवि किशोर निवासी 1/694, विशाल खण्ड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ ने एक भूखण्ड के लिए आवेदन किया और उसे भूखण्ड सं0-0095, सैक्टर-जे, पॉकेट 3, क्षेत्रफल 420 वर्गमीटर, अनुमानित दर 7176/- रू0 प्रति वर्गमीटर, सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी, सुल्तानपुर रोड, लखनऊ में दिया गया और इस सम्बन्ध में फ्लैट बायर एग्रीमेण्ट दिनांक 28-07-2010 को निष्पादित हुआ।
दिनांक 15-11-2010 को उक्त आवंटी ने परिवादिनी के पक्ष में आवंटन/स्थानान्तरण के लिए आवेदन किया और सारी औपचारिकताऐं पूरी की गयीं। यह भी कहा गया कि परिवादिनी से 13,25,280/- रू0 विपक्षी द्वारा प्राप्त कर लिए गए, अत: उसका नाम अंकित किया जाये। प्रशासनिक खर्चा 50,200/- रू0 भी विपक्षी को अदा किया गया। इसके अन्तर्गत फ्लैट सं0-जे/3/0095 का आवंटन श्रीमती सुषमा शिवहरे के नाम से स्थानान्तरित होकर परिवादिनी के नाम से आवंटित हुआ और सभी उद्देश्यों के लिए अब परिवादिनी ही आवंटी हो चुकी है। इस स्थानान्तरण के सम्बन्ध में सूचना दिनांक 06-12-2010 को दे दी गयी और इस भूखण्ड का मूल्य किश्तों में देना था। इस योजना के अन्तर्गत डिमाण्ड करने पर भुगतान करना था और विलम्ब होने की दशा में डेवलपर द्वारा 18 प्रतिशत ब्याज लिया जाना था। परिवादिनी आखिरीबार जुलाई 2015 में डिमाण्ड नोटिस मिलने पर कुल 29,66,820/- रू0 जमा कर चुकी है। परिवादिनी ने बार-बार विपक्षी द्वारा जमीन पर कराये गये विकास कार्यों के सम्बन्ध में पूछताछ की, लेकिन उसे कोई समुचित उत्तर नहीं मिला। परिवादिनी जुलाई, 2015 तक भूखण्ड के कुल मूल्य का 90 प्रतिशत जमा कर चुकी है और अब मात्र 10 प्रतिशत जमा करना बाकी था। अगला भुगतान भूखण्ड के मूल्य का 05 प्रतिशत होना था, जब डेवलपर इस भूखण्ड पर विद्युत कनेक्शन दे देता और शेष 05 प्रतिशत का भुगतान इस भूखण्ड का अध्यासन दिये जाने के समय करना था।
डेवलपर ने अगली स्टेज के बारे में कभी कोई सूचना नहीं दी। मार्च, 2018 में परिवादिनी को मालूम हुआ कि डेवलपर ने कई भूखण्डों का कब्जा कई लोगों को दे दिया है और उनके पक्ष में विक्रय प्रलेख भी निष्पादित कर दिये हैं, किन्तु परिवादिनी के पक्ष में ऐसा कभी नहीं हुआ। तब परिवादिनी ने इस सम्बन्ध में जानकारी की। परिवादिनी से कहा गया कि वह की गयी औपचारिकताओं के बारे में विस्तृत विवरण दे तब उसे भूखण्ड का कब्जा मिलेगा। परिवादिनी ने डेवलपर को बार-बार सूचित किया कि उसके भूखण्ड के आस-पास अन्य भूखण्ड का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है ओर उसे इस भूखण्ड की नितान्त आवश्यकता है, लेकिन डेवलपर ने कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया। परिवादिनी हमेशा एग्रीमेण्ट की शर्तों को मानने के लिए तैयार है, लेकिन डेवलपर अपना कार्य करने में असफल रहे। अत: परिवादिनी के पास अन्य कोई विकल्प न होने पर उसने यह परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया, जिसमें उसने निम्नलिखित अनुतोष चाहा है :-
1. विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाए कि वे परिवादिनी को भूखण्ड सं0-0095, सैक्टर-जे, पॉकेट 3, क्षेत्रफल 420 वर्गमीटर, अनुमानित दर 7176/- रू0 प्रति वर्गमीटर, सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी, सुल्तानपुर रोड, लखनऊ का कब्जा प्रदान करें और इस सम्बन्ध में बिना किसी विलम्ब के इस भूखण्ड का विक्रय प्रलेख निष्पादित करें।
विकल्पत:
इस भूखण्ड के बाजार मूल्य के अनुसार उसको धनराशि प्रदान करें।
2. विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाए कि वे परिवादिनी को उसके द्वारा जमा की गयी धनराशि पर 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से जुलाई 2015 से विक्रय प्रलेख के निष्पादन की तिथि तक ब्याज अदा करें।
3. विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाए कि वे परिवादिनी को 10.00 लाख रू0 हर्जाने का अदा करें।
4. विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाए कि वे परिवादिनी को वाद व्यय के रूप में 55,000/- रू0 प्रदान करें।
5. अन्य कोई अनुतोष जो माननीय राज्य आयोग न्याय हित में उचित समझे, को दिलाया जाए।
विपक्षीगण द्वारा अपना लिखित कथन प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें कथन किया गया गया कि उनके प्रस्ताव का ग्राहकों ने स्वागत किया है। परिवादिनी ने शर्तों को पढ़ने के बाद आवेदन किया था और यह कहना कि उसने शर्तों को नहीं पढ़ा था, मिथ्या है। परिवादिनी ने केवल 05 किश्तें अदा की हैं, जो भूखण्ड का मूल्य है और उसने भूमि के विकास के मद में अन्य कोई धनराशि जमा नहीं की है। उसने अपने दायित्वों का निर्वहन नहीं किया है और शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है। विपक्षी का उत्तरदायित्व परिवादिनी द्वारा समय पर किश्तें अदा करने पर निर्भर है अन्यथा योजना का कार्य बाधित होगा। एग्रीमेण्ट की शर्तों के अनुसार आवंटी द्वारा किसी प्रकार कोई हर्जाना नहीं मांगा जायेगा। परिवादिनी एक निवेशक है, जिसने रियल स्टेट बिजनेस में लाभ कमाने के उद्देश्य से निवेश किया है और वह उपभोक्ता की श्रेणी में नहीं आती है। वह स्वच्छ हाथों से न्यायालय के समक्ष नहीं आयी है। उसके द्वारा बकाया धनराशि अदा नहीं की गयी। यदि परिवादिनी अपनी धनराशि को वापस मांगती है तो विपक्षी इसके लिए तैयार है, लेकिन वह इस सम्बन्ध में अर्नेस्ट मनी को जब्त करेगा ओर इसी टाउनशिप में परिवादिनी को दूसरा वैकल्पिक भूखण्ड भी देने को तैयार है। परिवादिनी ने अपने दायित्वों का निर्वहन नहीं किया है और उसने समय से किश्तों का भुगतान नहीं किया है, जिसके कारण उसका आवंटन निरस्त किया गया। अत: वर्तमान परिवाद सव्यय निरस्त होने योग्य है।
हमने परिवादिनी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री ए0के0 श्रीवास्तव एवं उनके सहयोगी अधिवक्ता श्री विजय कुमार तिवारी की विस्तार से बहस सुनी तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध समस्त अभिकथनों/अभिलेखों एवं साक्ष्यों का भलीभांति अवलोकन किया। बहस करने हेतु विपक्षीगण की ओर से कोई उपस्थित नहीं हुआ।
मामले को आगे देखने से पूर्व हम सबसे पहले उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के उद्देश्य के बारे में विचार करते हैं कि यह अधिनियम किन उद्देश्यों के लिए पारित किया गया था :-
The Consumer Protection Act, came into existence and implemented in 1986, provides Consumer Rights to prevent consumers from fraud or specified unfair practices. It safeguards and encourages and gives an opportunity to consumers to speak against insufficiency and flaws in goods and services. If traders, manufacturers and distributors follow any foul trade, this act protects their rights as a consumer.
On which products are these right applicable?
This Protection Act covers entire goods and services of all sectors that are public, private, or cooperative sectors, except those exempted by the central government. The act provides a floor for a consumer where one can file their complaint against the product and the forum takes an action against the concerned supplier and compensation is granted to the consumer for the inconvenience he/she has encountered.
Objectives of consumer protection act To Provide better and all round protection to consumer.
To Provide machinery for the speedy redressal of the grievances.
To Create framework for consumers to seek redressal.
To Provide rights to consumers.
To Safeguarde rights of Consumers.
Let us know more about the rights and responsiblities of consumer Consumer Rights Listed below are the Rights of the Consumer Right to Safety- Before buying, a consumer can examine on the quality and guarantee of the goods and opt for ISI or AGMARK products.
Right to Choose- Consumer must have the right to choose from a variety and number of goods and in a competitive price Right to be informed- The buyers must be provided with complete information with all the necessary and adequate details of the product, make her/him act wise, and change the buying decision.
Right to Consumer Education- The consumer must be aware of his/her rights and avoid exploitation.
Right to be heard- The consumer will get due attention to express their grievances at a suitable platform.
Right to seek compensation- The consumer has the right to seek or ask for redressal against unfair and inhumane practices or exploitation of the consumer.
Consumer Responsibilities Responsibility to be aware - A consumer has to be careful of the safety and quality of products and services before purchasing.
Responsibility to think independently- Consumer should be well bothered about what they want and need and hence make independent choices.
Responsibility to speak out- The buyer should be fearless to speak out their problems and tell to traders what they exactly want Responsibility to complain- It becomes the consumer's responsibility to express and file a complaint about their dissatisfaction with goods or services in a sincere and fair manner.
Responsibility to be an Ethical Consumer- Consumer must be fair and not engage themselves with any deceptive practice.
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumers Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith (Preamble).
The Act Inter alia, seeks to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as --
(1) right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(2) right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(3) right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
(4) right to be heard and to assured that customers' interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums.
(5) Right to seek redressal against unfair practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (6) Right to consumer education The objects are sought to be promoted and protected by the Consumer Protection Councils to be established at the Central and State levels.
The Act applies to all goods and services, except if otherwise provided by the Central Government by Notification. To provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is set up at the District, State and Central levels. The three tier system of quasi judicial bodies will observe the principle of natural justice and are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi judicial bodies have also been provided.
Thus the Consumer Protection Act is to serve the interests of the consumers. Consumer education and redressal of consumers' grievances are the two aspects of the Act. It makes good the loss a consumer suffers and increases the feeling of responsibility of the manufacturer, trader, supplier or businessman.
The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favor of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.
Extent of Consumer Protection:
While other legislations may be either punitive or preventive, the Consumer Protection Act compensates the consumer. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any law at the time being in force (Sec 3). In Maine Container Services South Pvt Ltd v Go Garments 1998 (3) SCC 247 it has been held that the Contract Act applies to all litigants before the Commissioner under the Consumers Protection Act. Passengers traveling in train suffering injuries and loss of Jewelry as a result of assault by unruly crowd are eligible for filing of complaint before State Commission is maintainable notwithstanding the provisions of sections 100 and 103 of Railways Act, 1889. The Consumer Protection Act therefore gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. Existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement is no bar to the entertainment of complaint by the Redressal Agency as the remedy under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law. However, the Consumer Forums under the Act have not taken over the jurisdiction of civil Courts. If the dispute between the parties is pending in Civil Court no Consumer Forum will adjudicate the dispute. Similarly if evidence be laid by the parties to the dispute is voluminous or complicated the parties will be referred to the appropriate Civil Court.
Consumers Protection Act, thus enshrines the rights of a consumer to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, price etc., of the goods to be protected against unfair trade practices, to seek inexpensive and expeditious redressal of grievances before the Consumer Forums. Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent piece of legislation to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation.
With the passage of time, the populace of the country is on hike and so are their opinions. Their opinion forms the basis for their interpretation, it may be a good or a bad interpretation. What would happen in the situation where people starting interpreting the laws? We might be flooded with several interpretations. The interpretations will be in such huge number that the laws will become unclear. This is the reason why lawmakers, while making the law, formulate itin accordance with the aim, set out by them, before penning down the legislations. The aim of any legislation defines the basis of the act. It becomes the ground norm of the act, based upon which the judiciary interprets the disputed texts.
The aim of any act forms the indispensable element, because it acts as the cord that delivers the real intention of the legislators behind the act. Whenever there is clash between two legislations, it is the aim of the legislation which makes the judges to derive at the endpoint in deciding which law has the superseding effect. It is through the doctrine of pith and substance that judges are able to derive at the major inclination towards one act over another act. This inclination is decided on the basis of the aim/goal of the act and the facts of that particular case.
The beneficial legislation of Consumer Protection Act aims at reducing the grievances of the all classes of customers by providing them the preferential treatment. According to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer dispute is the entity where the consumer/ customers have been given the convenient safeguards against ample exploitation like bad customer service, faulty goods or any unfair trade practices. The interest of the customers is protected by setting up, the three tier quasi-judicial consumer Redressal machinery which are at national, state and district levels as per section 9 of Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) has been enacted in light of certain concerns related to public policy and the benefit of consumer.
स्पष्ट है कि उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम उपभोक्ताओं के हितों के लिए है और इसको इसी ढंग से लेना चाहिए।
वर्तमान मामले में परिवादिनी ने कहा है कि वह सम्पूर्ण धनराशि अदा कर चुकी है लेकिन उसे कब्जा अभी तक नहीं दिया गया है। अत: उसे कब्जा दिया जाये या फिर उसकी जमा धनराशि ब्याज के साथ वापस की जाये।
प्लाट बायर एग्रीमेण्ट के क्लॉज 36 इस आशय का है कि आपसी समझौते के आधार पर यह मामला विवाद होने की दशा में पंचाट को सौंपा जायेगा। अत: इस मामले को पंचाट को सौंपा जाना चाहिए था न कि राज्य उपभोक्ता आयोग में परिवाद योजित किया जाना चाहिए। ऐसी दशा में वर्तमान परिवाद निरस्त होने योग्य है।
जहॉं तक मध्यस्थता अधिनियम और उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के आपसी सम्बन्ध की बात है, तब मात्र मध्यस्थ को मामला भेजे जाने की शर्त के रहते हुए भी मामला उपभोक्ता आयोग में प्रस्तुत किया किया जा सकता है।
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARBITRATION ACT AND CPA In India, people are least aware with the consumer's rights and lags behind having low general understanding of arbitration as dispute resolution mechanism. The arbitration clause can curtail the grounds on which the consumers can raise the disputes, whereas on the other side the consumer protection act may grant the consumer various grounds on which he can file the complaint which may not be otherwise permitted in the standard form agreement having the arbitration clause.
Arbitration has equal bargaining powers and the resources at hand which makes it private, efficacious, and timely form of dispute resolution. Whereas in case of consumer disputes, the case is different, where they are exposed to the standard form agreements making them submit to the unfair or the repressive terms. They are several times made part of the one-sided arbitration clause, which is drafted keeping in mind the interest of one party only.
These days Indians are shifting to the online purchasing platform and being ignorant of not checking the agreements which makes them to be covered under the blanket provision and end up being the party to the arbitration. This makes less options opened for the consumer to resort to the statutory remedies which in turns endangers the interest of the consumers. This may also build the hostile market against the e-commerce in India. It may have the adverse effect not only on the Indian economy but also on the e-commerce giants who aims at invest in the growing market.
CONSUMER COURT AS A SPECIAL COURT It was held in the case of Aftab Singh v Emaar MGF Land Limited &Anr., that the provisions of the arbitration act does not apply to the consumer courts, as they are the special courts set up for the public purpose. In this case, the group of the home owners filed the complaint against Emaar MGF Land Private Limited (Builder) before NCDRC. The complaint was filed for the non-delivering the plots to the buyers as per the Buyers' Agreement. The builder filed the application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on the basis of the arbitration agreement made between the parties which was mentioned there in the Buyer's Agreement.
It was argued by the petitioner that the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are not in exclusion of the existing laws, but are in addition to it, which has been sated in the case of National Seed Corporation Limited v M. Madhusudhan Reddy( (2012) 2 SCC 506 ) . It was also argued that the consumer protection act is the piece of the legislation which intends to confer the benefits and it is the, for which the purpose should be advanced. Therefore, regardless of having entered into the arbitration clause, the consumer can invoke the section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and bring the complaint to the consumer forum( Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd)[3].
The builder pleaded that the Consumer Courts act as the 'judicial authority' within the scope of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and therefore if there is any valid clause entered between the parties, then the consumer courts can refer the parties to the arbitration. And hence according to the act the consumer courts are obliged to bring the case for the arbitration, irrespective of the High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The NCRDC's full bench ruled that the arbitration act does not bars the consumer court's jurisdiction relying on the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc v. SBI Home Finance Ltd(2011) 5 SCC 532), which provided the country with the disputes that are not arbitrable. In this case, Supreme Court, came with the 7 categories of the disputes that are not arbitrable[5].
The commission also relied on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of A. Ayyasamy v. A Paramasivam(2016)10 SCC 386 ;N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers) that the dispute will not be arbitrable if the civil court's jurisdiction has been exclusively given to a tribunal or the special court. The Consumer Courts were made to create an organized system for dispute between the people who possess the unequal power i.e. the consumer and the large corporations. The commission also pointed out the section 2(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which refers to the situations where the special categories of disputes are protected from being referred to the arbitration. Therefore this provision protects the Consumer disputes. The court concluded that if the court allows party to go for the arbitration and being in favor of the builder, it will defeat the goals and the main purpose of the Consumer Protection Act.
THE CONDITIONS PRIOR AND POST 2015 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act states that the judicial authority can instruct the parties to go for arbitration in the case when there exists the arbitration clause in the arbitration agreement. It does not bars oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court, it will continue to hold and enjoy the jurisdiction irrespective of presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement.
The Supreme Court contented that there was no legislative intent of the amended provisions of the section 8(1) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, so as to override the other statutes which have the specific remedies. Neither it intends to make disputes related to trusts, criminal law, tenancy, telecom, family law, IPR, etc, as the arbitrable subject and to against the judgement of A Ayyasamy v A Parasivam&Ors(2016) 10 SCC 729 ) and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. v SBI Home Finance Limited &Ors.(2011) 5 SCC 532 ) Supreme Court analyzed the situations prior to 2015 Amendment, related to referring the consumer disputes to arbitration. Supreme Court referred to the judgmentsprior 2015 which had the settled law in cases of Fair Air Engineering Pvt. Ltd &Anr V N K Modi (1996) 6 the SCC 385), National Seeds Corporation Limited v Madhusudhan Reddy &Anr (2012) 2 SCC 506) and Rosedale Developers Private Limited V Aghor Bhattacharya &Ors (2018) 11 SCC 337). These cases held that even if the dispute arise from the contract having the arbitration clause, it will not impede the parties to resort to file a complaint before the consumer forum under Consumer Protection Act. All of the judgements had the rationale that provision of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act states that "the provision is in addition to, and not in the derogation of any other law for the time being in force."
The Supreme Court acknowledged the 2015 amendment which restricted the power of any judicial authority to refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration under section 8(1) and appointment of arbitrator under section 11(6A) and also acknowledged the fact that it invalidated the earlier precedent in the case of Sukanya Holding (P) Ltd v Jayesh H Pandya &Anr.( 2003) 5 SCC 531) Supreme Court considering section 2(3) of the arbitration act, states that the Part I of the arbitration act shall not affect any other law for the time being in force, by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to the arbitration. Supreme Court stated that the legislative intent of 2015 Amendment was never to override section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act and other statute which offers the public remedy like that of CPA.The Supreme Court in 1994 already held that CPA is a beneficial legislation which provides the economical and expeditious remedies to the aggrieved consumer in the case of Lucknow Development Act V M K Gupta(1994) 1 SCC 243).
Referring to all of the above cases, the Supreme Court in this case affirmed that the decision given by NCDRC is valid and stated that the consumer dispute are the subject matter where the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration as it pertains to rights in rem (public rights). It comes under the ambit of the non-arbitrable dispute defined under Booz Allen and Ayyasamy case. The disputes are non-arbitrable in disputes related to criminal laws, tenancy, trusts, family law, telecom, IPR, insolvency and winding up, and in certain cases, fraud.
CONCLUSION AND CRITICS OF THE CASE It can be ensured with the judgement that consumers who have lesser bargaining power than that of the service providers shall not be pushed towards the relatively cumbersome process of the arbitration where there can be other more affordable and efficacious low public law remedies available. The CPA is a special legislation which has the public law remedies dealing with the rights under the umbrella of "right in rem" which has been espoused by Booz Allen. The case had many critics for it, as it was delivered during the course of time, when India has been continuously focusing upon the survival and the supremacy of the arbitration proceeding over litigation in the Indian dispute resolution. And it was the major reason that it appeared for some of the people as a diversion from the object of Indian arbitration system to be an arbitration-friendly hub. This also draws our attention towards the fact that the arbitration shall be made a more consumer-friendly method of dispute resolution. It is because of this judgement that people were able to depict the heightened element of the public interest consumer dispute in India.
[1]Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 [2](2012) 2 SCC 506 [3]Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd [4](2011) 5 SCC 532 [5]Vimal Kishore Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah (2016) 8 SCC 788 [6] (2016)10 SCC 386 ;N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers [7](2016) 10 SCC 729 [8](2011) 5 SCC 532 [9](1996) 6 the SCC 385 [10] (2012) 2 SCC 506 [11](2018) 11 SCC 337 [12](2003) 5 SCC 531 [13](1994) 1 SCC 243 So it is clear that The Consumer Protection Act is a special type of act and even if there is a clause of arbitrator in the addiction form, it will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. So this court has jurisdiction to try the case.
यदि किसी फ्लैट बायर एग्रीमेण्ट या प्लाट बायर एग्रीमेण्ट में फ्लैट या भूखण्ड देने की अवधि के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहा गया हो, तब माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय के अनुसार ऐसे मामलों में अध्यासन 03 वर्ष के अन्दर दिया जाना चाहिए, जो एक तर्कसंगत समय है :-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no 3533-3534 of 2017 M/s Fortune Infrastructure (NOW known as M/s Hicon infrastructure ) & Anr Vs Trevor D'Lima& Ors judgement dated 12.03.2018 has held - , "Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there 10 was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ? "
अब हम वर्तमान परिवाद का अवलोकन करते हैं। पहले भूखण्ड का एग्रीमेण्ट दिनांक 28-07-2010 को निष्पादित हुआ। तत्पश्चात् यह भूखण्ड वर्तमान परिवादिनी को समस्त औपचारिकताऐं पूरी करते हुए हस्तान्तरित किया गया। प्रारम्भिक एग्रीमेण्ट दिनांक 28-07-2010 को निष्पादित हुआ था। अत: वही प्रारम्भिक बिन्दु है, जब से भूखण्ड का अध्यासन दिये जाने की गणना की जायेगी। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के उपरोक्त निर्णय के अनुसार इसमें 03 वर्ष की अवधि जोड़ने पर यह दिनांक 27-07-2013 आती है, जिसका तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि इस भूखण्ड का अध्यासन दिनांक 27-07-2013 तक अथवा उसके पहले देना था। इसी दिनांक से परिवादिनी को मिलने वाली क्षतिपूर्ति, ब्याज इत्यादि की गणना की जायेगी, परन्तु इस तिथि को हम 01-08-2013 मानकर परिवादिनी के देयों की गणना करेंगे। इस सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं मा0 राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता आयोग के निम्नलिखित निर्णयों को देखना समीचीन होगा :-
In the case of H. P. Housing Board v. Varinder Kumar Garg[(2005) 9 SCC 430] and Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar[(2005) 9 SCC 449], the Supreme Court directed the Commission to follow the principles laid down in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh in future cases."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development ..... vs. Darsh Kumar, Etc., Civil Appeal no 5796 of 2002 decided on 28 July, 2004 has held ;
"This Court has, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65, deprecated this practice. This Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental agony/harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office. This Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury. This Court has held that the Forum or the Commission thus had to determine that there was deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office and that it has resulted in loss or injury. This Court has also laid down certain other guidelines which the Forum or the Commission has to follow in future cases.
We are informed that in spite of there being no stay, to payment of interest beyond 12% and in spite of clarification given by this Court's order (reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65), the amounts have still not been paid. We feel that for the lapse Appellants must pay interest at the rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till payment. Appellants shall also pay costs fixed at Rs.500/- in each case to the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme Court. The Appellants must recover the amount paid towards costs personally from the officer/s, who were responsible for not paying even after clarification by this Court. We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as the order has been passed taking special features of the case into account. The Forum/Commission will follow the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases. The Appeals are disposed off in above terms. There will be no order as to costs."
So it is clear that the compensation and rate of interest shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be framed. In this connection some of the judgment of the Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC should be taken into account.
In the case of PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC).These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.
The Hon'ble NCDRC held that:
"Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses.
The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble State Commission, these appeals preferred before Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Hon'ble NCDRC discussed various case laws and after hearing the parties held, "Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade practice under Section 2 (nnn) of Consumer Protection Act and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under Section 2(nnn) of Consumer Protection Act."
"Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10(c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession."
Against this judgment, parties went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is:-
In Nalin Bhargava vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc. It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition of costs as compensation.
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised objections with regard to imposition of costs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When we say "cost", we mean costs alone and nothing else."
In the case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Suresh Chandra Garg, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24059/2022, Judgment dated 05.01.2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, "consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction, to sum up of the litigation which is pending for a long time. Let the order of the District Consumer Commission 06.09.2019 shall be complied with and the respondent be refunded the entire deposited amount with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a further period of 60 days from today failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum until actual payment."
Therefore it is clear that the amount shall be refunded with simple interest at the rate of 12% within 60 days from the date of judgment otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% simple interest per annum till the date of actual payment. In this case we take the cut-off date as October 2014 , and the interest shall be computed from November 1, 2014 till the date of actual payment.
अब हम वर्तमान मामले के तथ्यों को देखते हैं, जिसमें परिवादिनी ने 29,66,820/- रू0 जमा किया, किन्तु उसे अभी तक भूखण्ड का अध्यासन नहीं मिला। विपक्षीगण का यह कहना है कि परिवादिनी ने इस भूखण्ड को वाणिज्यिक प्रयोग के लिए क्रय किया है, किन्तु इस सम्बन्ध में उनके द्वारा कोई साक्ष्य नहीं दिया गया है। परिवादिनी ने मात्र एक भूखण्ड खरीदा है, इसलिए यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि उसने यह भूखण्ड वाणिज्यिक प्रयोग के लिए क्रय किया है। विपक्षीगण ने कहा है कि वे परिवादिनी द्वारा जमा धनराशि को अर्नेस्ट मनी काटने के बाद वापस देने के लिए तैयार हैं। यहॉं पर प्रश्न यह उठता है कि जब आप समय के अन्दर भूखण्ड का अध्यासन नहीं दे सके तब आपको अर्नेस्ट मनी काटने का क्या अधिकार है ? इस मामले में विपक्षीगण द्वारा सेवा में कमी गयी है और त्रुटि उनकी ओर से है न कि परिवादिनी की ओर से। विपक्षीगण ने यह भी कहा कि वे परिवादिनी को विकल्पत: दूसरा भूखण्ड देने को तैयार हैं, किन्तु उन्होंने यह नहीं बताया कि यह दूसरा भूखण्ड कहॉं पर देने के लिए तैयार हैं।
सभी तथ्यों और मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय तथा मा0 राष्ट्रीय आयोग के निर्णयों को देखने के उपरान्त हम इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि परिवादिनी का परिवाद निम्नलिखित अनुतोष के लिए विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध संयुक्त एवं पृथक-पृथक रूप से आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किए जाने योग्य है :-
1. परिवादिनी, विपक्षीगण से भूखण्ड सं0-0095, सैक्टर-जे, पाकेट 3, क्षेत्रफल 420 वर्गमीटर, अनुमानित दर 7,176/- रू0 प्रति वर्गमीटर, सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी, सुल्तानपुर रोड, लखनऊ का अध्यासन इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी है और साथ ही साथ वह इस भूखण्ड से सम्बन्धित विक्रय प्रलेख के निष्पादन की भी अधिकारी है। यदि विपक्षीगण संयुक्त एवं पृथक-पृथक रूप से इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर उक्त भूखण्ड का अध्यासन परिवादिनी को देने में असफल रहते हैं, तब उन्हें, परिवादिनी को 50,000/- रू0 प्रतिमाह दिनांक 01-08-2013 से तब तक देना होगा जब तक कि वे उक्त भूखण्ड का अध्यासन नहीं दे देते और उससे सम्बन्धित विक्रय प्रलेख का निष्पादन परिवादिनी के पक्ष में नहीं कर देते।
विकल्पत:
परिवादिनी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से इस भूखण्ड का वर्तमान बाजारू मूल्य जो किसी अधिकृत एजेन्सी के माध्यम से निश्चित किया जायेगा, इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर पाने की अधिकारी होगी और इस पर वह विपक्षीगण से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज पाने की अधिकारी होगी और यदि यह धनराशि इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 01-08-2013 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देनी होगी।
2. परिवादिनी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से अपने द्वारा जमा की गयी सम्पूर्ण धनराशि व उस पर जमा किये जाने के दिनांक से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर पाने की अधिकारी होगी और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो उपरोक्त धनराशि जमा करने के दिनांक से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
3. परिवादिनी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से 10.00 लाख रू0 क्षतिपूर्ति और इस पर दिनांक 01-08-2013 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज पाने की अधिकारी होगी यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर किया जाता है अन्यथा ब्याज की धनराशि 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
4. परिवादिनी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से 55,000/- रू0 वाद व्यय के रूप में पाने की अधिकारी होगी यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर किया जाता है अन्यथा इस धनराशि पर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक साधारण ब्याज भी देय होगा।
5. जहॉं तक परिवाद पत्र के अनुतोष सं0-(E) का सम्बन्ध है, परिवादिनी, विपक्षीगण से संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से मानसिक यन्त्रणा, सेवा में कमी और अवसाद के मद में एकमुश्त 20.00 लाख रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 01-08-2013 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज पाने की अधिकारी होगी यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर किया जाता है अन्यथा ब्याज की धनराशि 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से अन्तिम भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
आदेश वर्तमान परिवाद निम्न अनुतोष के लिए विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध संयुक्त एवं पृथक-पृथक रूप से आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है :-
1. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादिनी को भूखण्ड सं0-0095, सैक्टर-जे, पाकेट 3, क्षेत्रफल 420 वर्गमीटर, अनुमानित दर 7,176/- रू0 प्रति वर्गमीटर, सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी, सुल्तानपुर रोड, लखनऊ का अध्यासन इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर प्रदान करें और साथ ही साथ वे इस भूखण्ड से सम्बन्धित विक्रय प्रलेख का भी निष्पादन करें। यदि विपक्षीगण संयुक्त एवं पृथक-प्रथक रूप से इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर उक्त भूखण्ड का अध्यासन परिवादिनी को देने में असफल रहते हैं, तब उन्हें, परिवादिनी को 50,000/- रू0 प्रतिमाह दिनांक 01-08-2013 से तब तक देना होगा जब तक कि वे उक्त भूखण्ड का अध्यासन नहीं दे देते और उससे सम्बन्धित विक्रय प्रलेख का निष्पादन परिवादिनी के पक्ष में नहीं कर देते।
विकल्पत:
विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादिनी को इस भूखण्ड का वर्तमान बाजारू मूल्य जो किसी अधिकृत एजेन्सी के माध्यम से निश्चित किया जायेगा, इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर दिनांक 01-08-2013 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज सहित भुगतान करें और यदि यह धनराशि इस निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो दिनांक 01-08-2013 से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देनी होगी।
2. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादिनी को उसके द्वारा जमा की गयी सम्पूर्ण धनराशि व उस पर जमा किये जाने के दिनांक से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर भुगतान करें और यदि यह धनराशि इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा नहीं की जाती है तब ब्याज की दर 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक होगी, जो उपरोक्त धनराशि जमा करने के दिनांक से इसके वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
3. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादिनी को 10.00 लाख रू0 क्षतिपूर्ति और इस पर दिनांक 01-08-2013 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज का भुगतान करें यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर किया जाता है अन्यथा ब्याज की धनराशि 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
4. विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादिनी को 55,000/- रू0 वाद व्यय के रूप में भुगतान करें यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर किया जाता है अन्यथा इस धनराशि पर 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से वास्तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक साधारण ब्याज भी देय होगा।
5. जहॉं तक परिवाद पत्र के अनुतोष सं0-(E) का सम्बन्ध है, विपक्षीगण को संयुक्त व पृथक-पृथक रूप से आदेश दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादिनी को मानसिक यन्त्रणा और अवसाद के मद में एकमुश्त 20.00 लाख रू0 और इस पर दिनांक 01-08-2013 से 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज अदा करें यदि भुगतान इस परिवाद के निर्णय के 30 दिन के अन्दर किया जाता है अन्यथा ब्याज की धनराशि 15 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से दिनांक 01-08-2013 से अन्तिम भुगतान की तिथि तक देय होगी।
यदि विपक्षीगण इस परिवाद के निर्णय का अनुपालन निर्णय के दिनांक से 30 दिन के अन्दर करने में असमर्थ रहते हैं तब परिवादिनी को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विपक्षीगण के व्यय पर इस न्यायालय के समक्ष निष्पादन वाद प्रस्तुत करे।
उभय पक्ष को इस निर्णय की प्रमाणित प्रति नियमानुसार उपलब्ध करायी जाय।
वैयक्तिक सहायक से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह इस निर्णय को आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।
(विकास सक्सेना) (राजेन्द्र सिंह) सदस्य सदस्य
निर्णय आज खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षरित, दिनांकित होकर उद्घोषित किया गया।
(विकास सक्सेना) (राजेन्द्र सिंह) सदस्य सदस्य दिनांक : 05-01-2024. प्रमोद कुमार, वैय0सहा0ग्रेड-1, कोर्ट नं.-2. [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER