State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajeshwari Sarin vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 20 March, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017
Date of Institution : 17.05.2017
Date of Reserve : 12.03.2018
Date of Decision : 20.03.2018
1. Rajeshwari Sarin W/o Vimal Kumar Sarin R/o H. No. 380,
Model Town, Ambala City, Ambala, Haryana.
2. Vimal Kumar Sarin s/o Desh Deepak Sarin, H. No. 380,
Model Town, Ambala City, Ambala, Haryana.
....Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Site Office, Sector 85,
Mohali-160062 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized
Signatory.
3. M/s Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office
P.O. Rayon & Silk Mills, Adjoining Coca Cola Depot, G.T. Road,
Chheharta, Amritsar, Punjab, India-143105 through its Managing
Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
4. Rajinder Singh Chadha, Director of M/s Country Colonizers
Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 2
5. Manpreet Singh Chadha, Director of M/s Country Colonizers
Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
....Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For the opposite parties: Sh. Vipul Sachdeva, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that one Surinder Pal had booked apartment No. 403, 3 BHK, 1990 Sq. ft. and had paid Rs. 5 Lacs vide receipt dated 4.7.2012. He further made a payment of Rs. 7,46,281/- on 30.3.2013 and Rs. 65,306/- on 20.4.2013. The complainants wanted to purchase one apartment for self living and accordingly, they contacted Op Nos. 2 & 3 in March, 2013 and they stated about their project 'Wave Estate' in Sector 85, Mohali. They further inquired from them whether their project is cleared from the Department/Authorities, which was stated by them in positive. Then Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 3 the complainants decided to purchase an apartment and accordingly, they purchased the apartment from said Surinder Pal Singh and made a sum of Rs. 13,11,587/- to said Surinder Pal Singh and after that the complainants approached Ops to transfer the said unit in favour of the complainants. The Ops provided apartment allottee arrangement dated 28.5.2013 and allotted apartment No. 403, Tower 'Freesia' 4th Floor, Type 3BHK + S in Group Housing Development in Wave Garden, SAS Nagar, Sector 85 & 99, Mohali with super area 1990 sq. ft. and built up area 1708 sq. ft. for a total sum of Rs. 80,59,500/-. As per Clause 5.1, Ops were to deliver the possession of the apartment within 30 months with further grace period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. In this way, they were to deliver the possession as on 29.5.2016 but Ops failed to deliver the possession by the said date. They were further to provide number of amenities i.e. imported marble, split Air Conditioners, Wooden laminated flooring, modular kitchen with Hub and Chimney, RO Water Purifier, Anti Skid tiles of floors in bathroom etc. The complainants had opted for subvention link plan and had taken a loan of Rs. 64.50 Lacs from HDFC under which the HDFC was to make the payments on installment on demand being raised by the Ops. Under the said scheme, Pre-EMI interest was to be paid by the Ops to HDFC for a period of 24 months. The Ops sought a payment of Rs. 16,19,438/- and it was deposited vide cheque dated 10.6.2013 and Ops issued receipt dated 12.6.2013. Ops further claimed a sum of Rs. 3,95,562/- on account of interest, which was paid vide cheque Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 4 dated 10.6.2013 and Ops issued receipt dated 12.6.2013. The Ops further claimed a sum of Rs. 62,135/- and this payment was made vide receipt dated 21.4.2014. The complainants further made payment of Rs. 62,135/- to Ops on 19.5.2013 and receipt dated 22.5.2014 was issued. The complainants further deposited Rs. 2,04,547/- vide cheque dated 12.7.2014 with Ops and they issued receipt dated 16.7.2014. Another payment of Rs. 18,13,453/- was made to Ops on 12.7.2014 vide receipt dated 16.7.2014. The complainants made payment of Rs. 20,14,025/- vide demand draft dated 26.10.2015 and receipt dated 27.10.2015 was issued in this regard. An amount of Rs. 35,686/- was transferred through RTGS vide receipt No. 130001193 dated 9.2.2016 and another amount of Rs. 35,686/- was transferred through RTGS vide receipt No. 130001194 dated 9.2.2016. Another amount of Rs. 5,12,737/- was made to Ops vide receipt dated 25.2.2017. In this way, the complainants made total payment of Rs. 80,66,391/- till date. However, the Ops failed to offer the possession. The complainants had to make the payments of EMIs to the HDFC from January, 2016. Alleging deficiency in services on the part of Ops, this complaint has been filed by the complainants against the Ops with following directions:-
"A) To direct opposite parties to refund Rs. 80,66,991/-
alongwith 18% interest PA from the date of deposit till payment.
Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 5B) To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and mental agony to the Complainants.
C) To pay Rs. 33,000/- as cost of litigation.
D) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Forum may deem
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice."
2. Upon notice, although Mr. Vipul Sachdeva, Advocate had filed power of attorney on behalf of all the Ops but written reply was filed only by Op Nos. 1 to 3 through their Authorised Signatory Mr. Raghav Sharma taking preliminary objections that the complainants are not consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act because the complainants are permanent residents of Ambala City and now due to slow down in the real estate, they have filed this complaint to get the refund; there was no fixed time to complete the construction. According to Clause 5.1, it was mentioned that every endeavor shall be made to complete the construction within a period of 30 months with a grace period of 6 months and in case the construction is not completed within the said period then under Clause 5.5, the allottee was entitled to penal charges @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. beyond the period of delay. Further the Ops had entered into memorandum of agreement dated 3.2.2006 with Government of Punjab, who were to acquire the land for critical areas under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under that agreement, the State Government was to acquire 23.31 Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 6 acres of land, which falls under the Master Plan of the Ops project, therefore, the Ops failed to carry out the development work at the site and external access roads were to be provided by GMADA, due to this reason, the possession could not be delivered within the given time frame. On merits, it is a matter of record that Surinder Pal Singh was allotted this flat, who deposited Rs. 5.00 Lacs, Rs. 7,46,281/- and Rs. 65,306/- as referred in the complaint. After that the flat was transferred in the name of the complainants for a total sale consideration of Rs. 87,86,975/-. With regard to completion of the project, pleas taken in the preliminary objections were reiterated. With regard to raising of the loan and tripartite agreement with HDFC, it is a matter of record. The complainants had opted for subvention linked plan. The complainants had made payment of Rs. 5,12,735/- on 25.2.2017. Rest of the averments were denied. It was stated that there is no deficiency in services on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
3. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of their complaint. Complainants in their evidence has tendered affidavit of Rajeshwari Sarin as Ex. C-A, affidavit of Vimal Kumar Sarin as Ex. C-B and documents Exs. C-1 to C-23. On the other hand, Ops have tendered affidavit of Amarjit Singh as Ex. OP-A and documents Exs. Op-1/1 and 1/2.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents.
Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 7
5. An objection has been taken by the counsel for Op Nos. 1 to 3 that complainants are not consumer because they have big residential unit at Ambala City, therefore, this apartment was booked by them for investment purposes. Being slump in the market, they did not take possession of the apartment and demanded refund of the amount paid. However, the complainants in their complaint has specifically mentioned that the apartment was booked only for self living purpose. With regard to ownership of complainants House at Ambala as alleged in the written reply, no doubt that the address of the complainants as mentioned in the complaint is the same as referred in the preliminary submissions of Op Nos. 1 to 3 but there is no document that the complainants are owner of the said unit. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the complainants are the owner of the said house, there is no legal bar that for the use of their family, they cannot book another apartment at another location. No documentary evidence has been placed on the record by Op Nos. 1 to 3 that previously the complainants were trading in real estate. In the absence of any transaction in the real estate in the past, it cannot be said that the apartment was booked for speculative purposes. In this regard, a reference can be given to the judgment 2017(3) CLT 459 "Pranab Basak versus Suhas Chatterjee". In that case, two flats were booked by the complainant and a plea was taken that the complainant had booked these flats for investment purposes. It was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that unless it is established that the complainant is dealing in sale and purchase or Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 8 his real intention in booking the flat was to sell the same on profit, on appreciation of the value of the real estate. Further in "Kavita Ahuja versus Shipra Real Estate Ltd." and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd.", 2016 (1) CPJ 31 it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that buyers of the residential unit would be termed as consumer unless it is proved that he/she had booked the same for commercial purposes. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the plea taken by the Ops that the apartment was booked by the complainants for investment purposes cannot be accepted.
6. As per the pleadings of the parties, the complainants had purchased apartment No. 403 from Op, which was earlier purchased by one Surinder Pal Singh by paying an amount of RS. 13,11,587/- to Surinder Pal Singh. Then apartment allottee arrangement dated 28.5.2013 was executed between the parties. As per the agreement, physical possession of the apartment was given within 30 months with an extended period of 6 months i.e. upto 28.11.2015 and by taking grace period of 6 months upto 28.5.2016 but Ops failed to deliver the possession. As per agreement, the complainants opted for subvention linked plan, which as per Annexure-II reads as under:-
Payment Plan Subvention Linked Plan On Booking 3.0 Lacs for 2BHK, 5.0 Lacs for 3BHK & 3+S BHK Within 45 days of booking 15% of Sale 15% Price less Booking Amt.
Excavation upto five feet 25% On completion of Fourth Floor roof slab 25% + 100% of PLC On completion of Super Structure / 25% Brick Work On completion of Internal Plastering + 100% of car parking On offer of Possession 10% + other applicable Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 9 charges + Stamp Duty & Registration charges 100% According to that after paying booking amount, the complainant was required to pay 15% within 45 days, which was paid by them.
Complainants had taken a loan of Rs. 64,50,000/- from HDFC Bank and as per tripartite agreement, HDFC Bank would make the payments of installments of the basis of demands being raised by the Ops at the stage of construction. The complainants have placed on the record receipt dated 4.7.2012 Ex. C-1 of Rs. 5 Lacs paid by Surinder Pal Singh, another amount of 7,46,281/- paid on 30.3.2013 Ex. C-2 by Surinder Pal Singh, Rs. 65,306/- paid on 20.4.2013 Ex. C-3 by Surinder Pal Singh, Rs. 16,19,438/- vide demand draft dated 10.6.2013 Ex. C-7, receipt dated 12.6.2013 Ex. C-8, Rs. 3,95,562/- vide receipt dated 12.6.2013 Ex. C-9, Rs. 62,135/- of service tax demand notice vide receipt dated 21.4.2014 Ex. C-11, another amount of Rs. 62,135/- vide receipt dated 22.5.2014 Ex. C-12, Rs. 2,04,547/- vide receipt dated 16.7.2014 Ex. C-13, Rs. 18,13,453/- vide receipt dated 16.7.2014 Ex. C-14, Rs. 20,14,025/- vide receipt dated 27.10.2015 Ex. C-18, Rs. 35,685/- vide receipt dated 9.2.2016 Ex. C-19, another amount of Rs. 35,686/- vide receipt dated 9.2.2016 Ex. C-20 i.e. the payment upto completion of structure/brick work and Rs. 5,12,737/- vide receipt dated 25.2.2017 Ex. C-22. Complainants have also placed on the record copies of cheques paid to HDFC Ltd. Ex. Op-1/2 is the account summary in which total collected amount from the complainants has been shown as Rs. 79,39,729/- whereas the Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 10 complainant claimed payable amount of Rs. 80,66,991/- as per above details. Ex. C-5 is the apartment allottees arrangement executed between the parties on 28.5.2013. According to Clause 5.1, the possession was to be delivered as under:-
"5.1 Subject to Clause 5.2 and further subject to all the Allottee(s) of the said "Residential Floor" in the "Said Project"
making timely payment(s), the Developer shall endeavor to complete the development of the "Said Project" in general and the said "Residential Floor" in particular as far as possible within 24 (twenty four) months along with an extended period of (6) six months from the date of execution of this "Residential Floor" Allottee(s)Arrangement and/or from the date of start of construction of "Residential Floor", which is later."
In case of non-compliance then Clause No. 5.5 is relevant, which reads as under:-
"5.5 Subject to Clause 5.1 and 5.2 above and further the Allottee(s) having complied with its obligations under the Application Form as well as this "Residential Floor" Allottee(s) Arrangement, including but not limited to timely payment of the entire Consideration and other charges as per the payment plan opted by the Allottee(s), in the event of willful delay in construction of the "Residential Floor" for reason attributable solely to the Developer, delay charges would be payable to the Allottee(s) at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet per month on Saleable/Super Area. It is hereby clarified that Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 11 the aforesaid delay charges shall be payable, subject to demand being raised by the Allottee(s) for the same (and will be calculated from the date of the said demand), till the date when possession of the said "Residential Floor" is offered to the Allottee(s). Further, all payments towards the delay charges, as due from the Developer, would be adjusted from the payment due to the Developer from the Allottee(s) at the time of the final settlement of Sale Consideration of the said "Residential Floor". Provided specifically that the Developer shall be entitled, without the payment of any delay charges, not to offer the possession of the said "Residential Floor", to the Allottee(s), till all payments/amount due and payable by the Allottee(s), as of such date, including all default, payment of interest etc. have been paid by the Allottee(s)."
However, as per the agreement, within the stipulated period, the Ops failed to deliver the possession. In case, the possession is not delivered within the time then the complainants have a right to ask for the refund. A reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as II (2014) CPJ 131 "PUDA versus Kanwalpreet Singh" that in case there is delay in handing over the possession, it amounts to deficiency in service and refund order can be passed. A reference has also been made to I (2017) CPJ 513 (NC) "Neha Suri versus Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd." In that case, the possession of the flat was not given as agreed. It amounts to deficiency in service. Amount deposited alongwith interest was ordered to be refunded. Similar Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 12 order was passed in I (2017) CPJ 113 "Vishal Issar v. Park Wood Developers Pvt. Ltd.". This Commission has already held in Consumer Complaint No. 164 of 2016 "Harmit Singh Arora versus M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited", decided on 2.2.2017 against the same opposite party that in case possession of the apartment has not been given as agreed then it amounts to deficiency in service and that the complainants are not bound to pay further payments when the project is not coming at the site and refund alongwith interest order was ordered.
7. After taking the approximate full amount, Ops failed to construct and deliver the possession of the apartment to the complainants, therefore, Ops are deficient in service. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be allowed.
8. It has been further argued by the counsel for the Ops that according to Clause No. 5.5, in case there is delay in delivery of the possession then the Ops are liable to pay the penalty as per Clause 5.5 i.e. @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month of super area from the date, the possession was to be delivered upto the date of payment. Whereas it has been contended by the counsel for the complainants that in case of late payment, the Ops are claiming interest @ 18% then similar treatment be given to the complainants. It is one sided agreement and in case of default on the part of complainants, they paid 18% interest whereas Ops are to pay just 3%. This question has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 427 of 2014 "Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd." decided on Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 13 8.6.2015 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed as under:-
"However, a term of a contract, in my view will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary but was given under a sort of compulsion on account of the person giving consent being left with no other choice or if the said term amounts to an unfair trade practice. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that the term providing for payment of a nominal compensation such as Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area having become the order of the day in the contracts designed by big builders, a person seeking to buy an apartment is left with no option but to sign on the dotted lines since the rejection of such term by him would mean cancellation of the allotment. He further submitted that a person seeking to acquire a built up flat instead of purchasing a plot and then raising construction on it, therefore, is not in a position to protest resist the inclusion of such a term in the Buyer's Agreement, and has to rely upon the reputation of the builder, particularly if he is a big builder such as Unitech Ltd. He also submitted that the format of the Buyer's Agreement is never shown to the purchasers at the time of booking the apartment and if he refuses to sign the Buyer's Agreement on the format provided by the builder, not only will he lose the booking, even the booking amount/earnest money paid by him will be forfeited by the builder. I find merit in the above referred submissions of the learned counsel. A person who, for one reason or the other, either cannot or does not want to buy a plot and raise construction of his own, Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 14 has to necessarily go in for purchase of the built up flat. It is only natural and logical for him to look for an apartment in a project being developed by a big builder such as the opposite party in these complaints. Since the contracts of all the big builders contain a term for payment of a specified sum as compensation in the event of default on the part of the builder in handing over possession of the flat to the buyer and the flat compensation offered by all big builders is almost a nominal compensation being less than 25% of the estimated cost of construction per month, the flat buyer is left with no option but to sign the Buyer's Agreement in the format provided by the builder. No sensible person will volunteer to accept compensation constituting about 2-3% of his investment in case of delay on the part of the contractor, when he is made to pay 18% compound interest if there is delay on his part in making payment.
It can hardly be disputed that a term of this nature is wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The builder charges compound interest @ 18% per annum in the event of the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to him but seeks to pay less than 3% per annum of the capital investment, in case he does not honour his part of the contract by defaulting in giving timely possession of the flat to the buyer. Such a term in the Buyer's Agreement also encourages the builder to divert the funds collected by him for one project, to another project being undertaken by him. He thus, is able to finance a new project at the cost of the buyers of the existing project and that too at a very low cost of finance. If the builder is to take loan from Banks or Financial Institutions, it will Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 15 have to pay the interest which the Banks and Financial Institutions charge on term loan or cash credit facilities etc. The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this very project. This gives credence to the allegation of the complainants that their money has been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r) (1) of the Act that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices enumerated in Section 2(r) (1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be evident from the use of word "including" before the words "any of the following practices".
The same view was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 347 of 2014, "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd." decided on 14.8.2015. A reference has also been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K.A. Nagmani Vs. Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board", C.A. No. 6730-6731, decided on 19.9.2012. In that case, the District Forum has allowed interest @ 12% p.a. and its appeal was dismissed by the State Commission as well as the Hon'ble National Commission Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 16 and after relying upon the judgment of "Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh", (2004) 5 SCC 65, the interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount was allowed alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Against the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd.", C.C. No. 347 of 2014 (supra), Op preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 35562 of 2015, decided on 11.12.2015 and passed the order as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the appeal. The judgment does not warrant any interference.
The Civil Appeal is dismissed."
9. However, it was further observed by the Hon'ble National Commission in another judgment 2017(3) CLT 520 (NC) "Ankur Goswami versus Supertech and another" wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed that this clause in the allotment letter would be applied to the case where allottee is seeking possession of the flat and where allottee is not seeking refund of the amount. However, in the present case, the allottee is seeking the refund, therefore, the penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. will not be applicable. Further under Rule 17 i.e. Rate of Interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, it has been provided as under:-
Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 17
"17. Rate of Interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement. - The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub- section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."
In the above rule it has been observed to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. The complainants have taken a loan from HDFC and the interest rate varied from 11% to 9%. In number of similar complaints, we have allowed the interest @ 12% p.a. i.e. Consumer Complaint No. 386 of 2016 "Meenakshi Puri versus Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 28.11.2017 and 'Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 2017 "Lt. Gurnur Singh Mahiwal & Anr. Versus M/s Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 4.1.2018. Therefore, to be just and reasonable, the complainants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% on the deposited amount.
10. Complainants have taken a loan from HDFC under subvention scheme under which the apartment allotted to the complainant was under mortgage and in case the complainants are seeking refund then it was his duty to implead HDFC as a party to it because clearance of loan account is a condition precedent to refund the amount to the complainants, therefore, whatever amount is refunded to the complainant, HDFC will have the first charge, therefore, the amount outstanding to the HDFC will be cleared first and balance amount, if any, will be paid to the complainants. Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 18
11. No other point was argued.
12. Sequel to the above, we allow the complaint and direct Ops as under:-
(i) to refund a sum of Rs. 80,66,991/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the various dates of deposit till actual payment, minus Pre-EMI interest already paid by Ops to HDFC under subvention scheme;
(ii) HDFC Bank will have the first charge whatever amount has been received by the Ops from HDFC.
Firstly the account of HDFC will be cleared and the remaining amount will be paid to the complainants.
(iii) Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lac on account of mental and physical harassment by making arrangements of various payments, visiting the Ops but Ops failed to complete the project.
(iv) Ops pay Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above directions be complied by Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainants will be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Ops.
13. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
14. The counsel for the parties / concerned parties are directed to collect free certified copy of the order from the office of Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2017 19 the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of pronouncement.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER March 20, 2018.
as