State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ruchira V.Arora vs M/S Chandigarh Overseas Private ... on 1 March, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 08 of 2013 Date of Institution : 08.01.2013 Date of Decision : 01.03.2013 Ruchira V.Arora wife of Anoop Arora, r/o House No.E-276 Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, SCO No.196-197, Sector 34-A, Fourth Floor, Chandigarh, through the Managing Director. 2. M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, 1005, 10th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, through the Managing Director. 3. Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited, SCO No.196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.
Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
Respondent No.3, exparte.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant submitted the application form No.103449, Annexure C-1, to the Opposite Parties, for Small Investor Plan and entered into an agreement dated 9.10.2006, for the allotment of a design studio, measuring 125 sq. feet and made payment of Rs.1,25,000/- to them. The application form submitted by the complainant was accepted, by the Opposite Parties. Subsequently, the complainant, entered into a Lease Agreement and Developer Buyer Agreement, with the Opposite Parties, on 16.12.2006, copies whereof are Annexures C-4 and C-5, respectively. According to the Developer Buyer Agreement, the complainant was allotted Design Studio No.4, 6th floor, Block A-1, measuring 125 sq. ft. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.4,75,000/- to the Opposite Parties, vide cheques and receipts, copies whereof are Annexure C-2 to C-12 (colly.). A letter dated 22.06.2009 Annexure C-13, was received by the complainant, from the Opposite Parties, wherein, an offer for Buy Back of the design studio, in question, was made by them. The complainant vide letter dated 20.10.2009 Annexure C-14, accepted the Buy Back Offer of the Opposite Parties. Under the Buy Back Offer, the complainant was to receive an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, from the Opposite Parties. It was stated that according to Clause No.28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement, the project was to be completed, within 30 months, from the date of start of construction, and, in case of delay, the complainant was entitled to receive an amount of compensation @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit, for the period of delay. It was further stated that even the period of 30 months expired on 18.01.2010, but the possession of the aforesaid unit, was not handed over to the complainant. However, the complainant only received the amounts of Rs.15,121/- and Rs.18,750/-, as compensation, for delay in possession, and the remaining amount of Rs.1,47,379/-, was not paid by the Opposite Parties.
3. It was further stated that the complainant remained, in touch, with the Executives of the Opposite Parties, on every occasion, and she was given an assurance that her case was being processed and she would receive the remaining payment, including the amount of Buy Back Offer, in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, very soon. However, no payment was made to her, by the Opposite Parties, except the one, referred to above. The complainant sent a letter Annexure C-15, vide courier receipt, copy whereof is Annexure C-16, to Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, to settle her grievance, by making the payment aforesaid, but to no avail. It was further stated that by neither delivering the possession of studio, in question, nor making payment of the Buy Back Offer, to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-, nor making payment of the remaining amount of compensation @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit, for the period of delay, the Opposite Parties, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, as Buy Back Offer, accepted by her; penal interest @12% P.A., on the amount of Rs.4,75,000/-, paid by the complainant, aforesaid; an amount of Rs.1,47,379/-, as compensation, as per Clause 28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement, for the delay, in offering of possession; and compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, because she had entered into agreements, to purchase an industrial unit, as also, to sell the same, with another Party. It was further pleaded that the complaint was premature, as the amounts payable by the complainant, under the agreement, had not been calculated so far. It was admitted that the complainant submitted the application form No.103449 Annexure C-1, to the Opposite Parties, for the allotment of a design studio. It was also admitted that she was allotted design studio, measuring 125 sq. feet, mentioned in the complaint. It was also admitted that the complainant made the payment of Rs.4,75,000/-, towards the part price of the said design studio, out of the total price of Rs.5 lacs. The execution of a Lease Agreement, as also Developer Buyer Agreement, was also admitted. It was denied that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 gave any Buy Back Option to the complainant. It was, however, stated that the letter about alleged Buy Back Offer was sent by Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the letter Annexure C-14, clearly showed that the complainant had no intention of using the unit, for her personal use and she wanted to sell the same, to earn huge profits. It was further stated that the compensation for delay, in construction, was not supposed to be paid to the complainant, but was supposed to be deposited, in the account, maintained for the specific purpose of maintenance and security of the Project. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, pleaded that it had no role, whatsoever, to play in the construction work of the industrial unit of FTP, Sector 90, Mohali, and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable against it. It was stated that the complainant applied for an industrial unit, for commercial purpose, to earn huge profits, and, as such, she did not fall within the definition of a consumer. It was further stated that the complainant had entered into a Lease Agreement with Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the Buy Back offer was not applicable, in the instant case, because Opposite Party No.1, had not given the possession of the industrial unit, to the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 had not received any letter of acceptance of Buy Back Option from the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. None put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in the District Forum, when the complaint was fixed for arguments, on 19.11.2012.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Party No.3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. Respondent no.3 was duly served, but no authorized representative, put in appearance, on its behalf, as a result, whereof, it was proceeded against exparte.
11. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondents no.1 and 2, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
12. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the complainant, intended to purchase the design studio, and not an industrial unit, measuring 125 square feet (very small in size), the total price whereof was Rs.5 lacs, a meagre amount. He further submitted that, no doubt, in the complaint, it was not averred by the complainant, that she wanted to run the design studio, for earning her livelihood, by way of self employment, yet, from the very small size of the same and the meagre price thereof, it could very well be presumed that, it was for the purpose aforesaid, and not for earning huge profits. He further submitted that, as such, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, but the District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary. He further submitted that the complainant never intended to resell the design studio, allotted in her favour, but it was only the Buy Back Offer which was given by the Opposite Parties, by way of facility, which the complainant availed of, by accepting the same, and, as such, it could not be said that she intended to purchase the said unit, for the purpose of resale. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that, in their written version, the Opposite Parties, in clear-cut terms, admitted that the complaint was premature, and then how, it could be said that the same (complaint) was barred by time. He further submitted that neither the possession was delivered to the complainant, in respect of the said studio, which was allotted in her favour, though she paid a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, nor the entire amount of compensation for the delayed period was paid to her, as per Clause 28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement, nor the amount of the Buy Back Offer, which was given by the Opposite Parties, and was accepted by the complainant, was paid to her, and, as such, there was a continuing cause of action, in her favour. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion, by holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, thus, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
13. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, submitted that since, it was an industrial unit, which the complainant intended to purchase, for the purpose of running a commercial activity, to earn huge profits, whether its size was small or big, hardly mattered. He further submitted that since, the design studio was intended to be purchased by the complainant, for the purpose of resale thereof, i.e. by allegedly accepting the Buy Back Offer of Opposite Party No.3, she did not fall within the definition of a consumer. He further submitted that the Parties are governed by the terms and conditions contained in the Developer Buyer Agreement. He further submitted that, according to Clause 28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement, compensation @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit, was not to be paid to the complainant, but the same was to be deposited, in the Corpus Fund, for the purpose of maintenance etc. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. He further submitted that the District Forum was also right, in coming to the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
14. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer or not? Annexure C-5 is a copy of the Developer Buyer Agreement dated 16.12.2006, which was executed between the Parties, at Chandigarh. It is evident, from this document, that it was, in clear-cut terms, mentioned therein that the Developer had launched one scheme called Small Investor Scheme, vide which, a share in design studio of an area measuring 100 sq. feet, in case of 5th floor or 125 sq. feet, in case of 6th floor of the Industrial Zone/Complex, was to be offered to the prospective buyers, on free-hold basis, as a co-owner of the same (design studio). From the Developer Buyer Agreement, Annexure C-5, it is also evident, that it was a small investor scheme, under which, the design studio, and not an industrial unit, measuring 125 square feet, was allotted to the complainant, and she paid a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, out the total price of Rs. 5 lacs, of the same. The question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the studio measuring 125 square feet, referred to above, was intended to be purchased by the complainant, for running commercial activity, on a large scale, for earning huge profits, or for earning her livelihood, by way of self-employment. No doubt, no averment, was made by the appellant/complainant, in the complaint, that the said Studio was intended to be purchased by her, for earning her livelihood, by way of self employment, yet, that fact alone, could not be said to be sufficient, to come to the conclusion, that she (appellant/complainant), purchased the said Studio for carrying on the commercial activity, on a large scale, for earning huge profits. As stated above, the size of the Studio, purchased by the appellant/ complainant, is 125 square feet. It means that the size of the said Studio is very small. Even the price of the said Studio was Rs.5 lacs, out of which, a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-was paid by the appellant/complainant. Whatever activity was to be carried on, in the said Studio, was to be on small scale. From the evidence, produced, on record, and the circumstances of the case, it was established that the appellant/ complainant, never intended to run commercial activity, in the Studio, on a large scale, with a view to earn huge profits. No evidence was produced, by the Opposite Parties, that the complainant was a property dealer, dealing in the sale and purchase of real estate. No evidence was also produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainant was engaged in any other commercial activities, as a result whereof, she was earning huge profits. In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Usha Vohra, IV (2009) CPJ 305 (NC), the complainant was allotted a booth in Sector 10, Panchkula, on 15.10.1991, for which she had paid a total consideration of Rs.8,29,354.50, till 31.12.1996. There was no averment, in the complaint, that the same was purchased by the complainant, for earning her livelihood, by way of self employment. The complaint was decided, in favour of the complainant, by the District Forum, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the excess amount charged. An appeal was preferred, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a Revision Petition was filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. During the course of Revision Petition, an argument was advanced, that since the complainant was allotted booth, which was obviously for commercial purpose, she did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid case, held that the mere fact that the respondent/complainant, had been allotted a booth, no conclusive finding, could be recorded about the same (booth) having been allotted for commercial consideration, and, not for earning livelihood, as that would require a lot of consideration to unsuit her. In Remington Rand of India Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Pioneer Typewriter Co. I (1996) CPJ 317 (NC), a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the complainant purchased a Paper Copier Machine for Rs.1,43,000/-, from the Opposite Party, which did not give satisfactory service. No averment, was made, in the complaint, that the Paper Copier Machine, had been purchased by the complainant, for earning livelihood, by way of self employment. Ultimately, the machine became defective, and the complaint for replacement of the same, was filed. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided the complaint, in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the Opposite Party/appellant, which took up the plea, that the complainant/respondent, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as the machine was purchased by it, for running the business, on a large scale, for earning huge profits. In these circumstances, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the firm of the complainant, was indeed a small unit, and just because it was a partnership firm, it could not be concluded that it was engaged, in a large scale commercial activity, for earning huge profits. It was further held that since loan was obtained by the complainant/ respondent, from the Bank, for purchasing the machine, which fact, in itself, clearly proved that the complainant was to run a small venture, to earn its livelihood, by way of self employment. In Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation IV (2008) CPJ 294, a case decided by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, an application for allotment of an industrial plot, was made by the complainant, but no averment was made, in the complaint, by the complainant, that it intended to purchase the same with a view to earn livelihood, by way of self employment. However, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, held that when the industrial plot was not allotted to the complainant, it sought refund, and, under these circumstances, it fell within the definition of a consumer.
15. As per the explanation appended to clause (ii) of Section 2(d) of the Act commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her, and services availed of by him/her exclusively, for the purpose of earning him/her livelihood, by means of self-employment. It is not the value of the goods, that matters, but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self-employment" make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought, must be used, by the buyer himself, by employing himself, for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis that a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, to ply it, himself, on hire, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck, who purchases it, for plying it as a public carrier, by himself, would be a consumer. A person, who purchases a lathe machine, or other machine, to operate it himself, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. In the above illustrations, if such a buyer, takes the assistance of one or two persons, to assist/help him, in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine, or other machine, to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation, flowing from the expressions "used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. As stated above, it was only a small unit, measuring 125 square feet, the price whereof was Rs.5 lacs, out of which Rs.4,75,000/-, were paid by the appellant/complainant. The size of the unit (design studio) and the small consideration, for which it was purchased, in itself, were sufficient to prove, that the same was purchased for running a small commercial activity, to earn livelihood, by way of self employment. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was not right, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being not correct are reversed.
16. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Buy Back offer, was given by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant or not? Annexure C-13 is the letter dated 22.06.2009, signed by Mr. Sumesh Chawla, Director of respondent no.3, vide which, Buy Back Option, of the unit @Rs.7.50 lacs, per single unit, was given to the complainant, and she was required to intimate, within 30 months, from the date of start of construction of the Project. It was further stated, in this document, that since the date of start of construction of the Project was 19.07.2007, hence, 30 months would get completed on 18.01.2010. It was also mentioned, in this letter that if the complainant wished to avail of the Buy Back offer, she had to write to the Opposite Parties, at least one month, before the aforesaid date. Annexure C-14, is the letter dated 20.10.2009, sent by the complainant, to the Director, Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited, S.C.O. No.196-197, Fourth Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022/respondent no.3. The same very Sumesh Chawla, in the capacity of Director of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2/respondents No.1 and 2, filed written version on their behalf, as also affidavit, by way of evidence. Thus, respondents no.1 and 2 and 3, though claimed themselves to be distinct entities, on papers, yet were actually representing them, to the consumers, as one and the same. In our considered opinion, Buy Back offer, given by the Opposite Parties, was duly accepted by the complainant and communicated to them. The District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the acceptance of said Buy Back offer, was not communicated by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties. The findings of the District Forum, to the effect that the acceptance of Buy Back offer, was never communicated to the Opposite Parties, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
17. Once, it is held that the Buy Back Offer, in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- given by the Opposite Parties, was accepted by the complainant, and communicated to them, it is to be determined, whether this amounted to resale of the studio by her (complainant). It was not that, from the very beginning, it was the intention of the appellant/complainant, to resell the unit, which was purchased by her. In M/s Baba Group Enterprises and others Vs. Dinesh Paramanik (2010) (2) CCC 717 (NS), the complainant/respondent allured by an advertisement of petitioner no.2/opposite party No.2, in the newspaper, approached petitioner no.1/opposite party no.1 and paid an advance of Rs.1000/-Thereafter, another amount of Rs.14,000/- towards the cost of 3000 saplings was paid to the petitioners/opposite parties. It was undertaken by the petitioners/opposite parties that they will buyback the saplings @Rs.17/- per sapling, when it became 12 in size. When the saplings became 12 in size, the respondent/ complainant approached the petitioners/opposite parties, to take delivery thereof, but they refused to buyback the same. Thereafter, a Consumer Complaint was filed. The same was allowed, holding that the same was maintainable, as the buyback facility was the service, which was provided by the petitioners/opposite parties and refusal in honouring the same, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, by them. Appeal filed against the order, rendered by the District Forum, was dismissed. The revision-petition filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, also met the same fate.
18. In M/s National Seeds Corpn. Ltd.. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004, decided on 16.01.2012, by the Honble Supreme Court, the appellant/opposite party had selected a set of farmers, in the area, for growing seeds, on its behalf. After entering into agreements with the selected farmers, the appellant, supplied foundation seeds to them for a price, with an assurance that within few months, they will be able to earn profits. The seeds were sown under the supervision of the expert, deputed by the appellant. The entire crop was to be purchased by the appellant. The agreements entered into between the appellant, and the growers, clearly postulated supply of the foundation seeds with an assurance that the crop will be purchased by it. No evidence was produced that the growers had the freedom to sell the seeds in the open market, to any person other than the appellant. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that it could not be said that the growers had purchased the seeds for resale or for any commercial purpose and they were excluded from the definition of the term consumer.
19. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. As stated above, since the facility of buyback of the design studio was given by the Opposite Parties, it could not be said that the complainant intended to purchase the said studio, for the purpose of resale. Had it been the intention of the complainant, from the very beginning, to resell the said unit, then the matter would have been different. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant, did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse are reversed.
20. The District Forum, no doubt, held that the complaint was barred by time. In our considered opinion, the District Forum was not right, in coming to such a conclusion. In the instant case, the construction of the unit was to be completed by 18.01.2010. Neither the construction of the design studio was completed nor the possession thereof, was handed over to the complainant, though she paid Rs.4,75,000/-, against the total price of Rs.5 lacs, nor the amount of Buy Back offer, which was accepted by the complainant, was paid to her, nor the entire compensation, as per Clause 28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement i.e. @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit, was paid to her. Under these circumstances, there was a continuous cause of action, surviving in favour of the complainant. Even, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their written version, in clear-cut terms, stated that the complaint was premature, then how the said complaint could be said to be barred by limitation. In our considered opinion, since there was a continuous cause of action, surviving in favour of the complainant, the complaint was not at all barred by limitation. The findings of the District Forum, to the effect, that the complaint was barred by time, being perverse are reversed.
21. The Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2/Opposite Parties no.1 and 2, no doubt, submitted that the Parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the Developer Buyer Agreement and no relief could be granted, to any Party, beyond the same. Referring to Clause 28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement Annexure C-5, it was submitted by the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, that amount of compensation @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit, for delay, was to be deposited in the Corpus Fund, for the purpose of maintenance etc. In the instant case, the Buy Back Offer was given by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant and she accepted the same. It was, on account of delay, in handing over the possession to the complainant that she was to be paid compensation @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit. As stated above, the construction of design studio was to be completed by 18.01.2010. The construction of the same has not so far been completed. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties could not be heard to say that neither they were liable to handover possession of the said studio, nor they were liable to pay the amount of Buy Back Offer, nor they were liable to pay compensation, for delay, in construction of the design studio. In paragraph number 5 of the complaint, it was in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainant, that as per Clause 28 of the Developer Buyer Agreement, she only received a sum of Rs.15,121/- and Rs.18,750/-, from the Opposite Parties, as compensation for delay, in possession of the said studio, and rest of the amount of Rs.1,47,379/-, was still not paid by them to her. The averments contained in the complaint, were duly corroborated by the complainant, in her affidavit, by way of evidence. In paragraph number 5 of the written reply, filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, they did not specifically deny that they had not paid the amount of Rs.15,121/- and Rs.18,750/-. Similarly, Sh. Gursharan Batra, the Director of Opposite Party No.3, in his affidavit, submitted by way of evidence, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, did not deny the factum of payment of Rs.15,121/- and Rs.18,750/-, to the complainant, as compensation. In case, compensation @ Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit, was not to be paid to the complainant and was to be deposited in the Corpus Fund, to be maintained by the builder, then why, part amount of compensation, in the sum of Rs.15,121/- and Rs.18,750/-, was paid by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, is not known. The District Forum, did not record any finding, regarding grant or refusal of compensation @Rs.50/- per square feet, per month of the super area of the unit. The complainant claimed compensation @Rs.6,250/- per month (125 sq. feet x Rs.50/- per month), for 29 months, out of which, she has already received Rs.33,871/-, as compensation, as admitted by her. The claim of the complainant, in respect of the remaining amount of Rs.1,47,379/-, on account of compensation, is, thus justified. The complainant is, thus, held entitled to Rs.1,47,379/-, as compensation.
22. It is, thus, clearly proved from the facts, circumstances, and evidence, on record, that the respondents/Opposite Parties were completely deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum, was wrong in holding to the contrary.
23. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant and respondents no.1 and 2.
24. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and is liable to be set aside.
25. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is accepted partly, holding respondents/Opposite Parties, jointly and severally liable, as under:-
i. To pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, (the amount of Buy Back Offer) to the appellant/complainant.
ii. To pay Rs.1,47,379/-, as compensation, for delay in delivery of possession, as indicated in paragraph no. 21 above, to the appellant/complainant.
iii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the appellant/complainant.
iv. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the respondents/Opposite Parties, to the appellant/complainant, within a period of 60 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @12% P.A., on the aforesaid payable amounts, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization.
26. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
27. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
01.03.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg