State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parsvnath Dev vs Vivek Chawla on 1 May, 2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 273 of 2011 Date of institution: 07.10.2011 Date of decision : 01.05.2012 1. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Regd.& Corporate office, 6th floor, Arunachal Building,19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. The Director, Parsvnath Developers Ltd. SCO -1, First floor, Madhya Marg, Sector-26, Chandigarh. ---Appellants Versus 1. Vivek Chawla son of Late Sh.R.P.Chawla, Resident of House No.3469, Sector-35-D, Chandigarh. 2.. The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg,Sector-9 Chandigarh. . Respondents Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Present Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. Respondent No.1 exparte. Sh.Vikas Jain, Advocate for respondent No2. Appeal case No.275 of 2011 (Date of institution:10.10.2011) Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg,Sector-9, Chandigarh. . Appellant Versus 1. Vivek Chawla , Resident of House No.3469, Sector-35-D, Chandigarh. 2. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. through its Director, SCO -1, First floor, Sector-26, Chandigarh. 3. The Director, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Regd.& Corporate office, 6th Floor, Arunachal Building,19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi . .. Respondents. Present: Ms.Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent No.1 ex parte. Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 25.8.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties(now appellants) as under ;
(i) Refund the amount of Rs.5,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the current SBI term deposit rate from the respective dates till actual payment.
ii) Pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment
iii) Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.6,40,000/- i.e. [Rs.5,90,000+ Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The above said interest shall be payable on Rs.5,90,000/- from the date of respective deposits whereas the above said interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.11.2.2011 till actual payment. In addition to this, OPs are also liable to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The complainant applied for the allotment of a residential flat by depositing Rs.5,90,000/- alongwith the application form, on 12.09.2007. He was allotted two bedroom residential Unit No.203, 2nd floor (Category D) in Block No.D-6, in the project of the Opposite Parties i.e. Parsvnath Prideasia at Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, vide allotment letter dated 11/15.10.2007. The balance amount was to be paid, as per construction linked payment plan. An agreement to sell dated 25.01.2008, was executed, amongst the parties. As per the Development Agreement dated 06.10.2006, already in existence between the Opposite Parties, the construction of the flats was to be completed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within 36 months from 6.10.2006. It was stated that apart from the above said amount of Rs.5,90,000/-, the complainant also paid instalments as per the construction linked payment plan. In all, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.32,53,750/- towards part payment of the price. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, failed to make any development at the site. It was further stated that dissatisfied with the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant sought refund of the amount of Rs.32,53,750/- alongwith interest. However, Opposite Party No.1 after deducting an amount of Rs.5,90,000/-, refunded the balance amount of Rs.26,63,750/- to him, vide demand draft No.157877 dated 9.7.2009. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties deliberately deducted an amount of Rs.5,90,000/-, while refunding the amount deposited by him. Despite his repeated requests, the said amount of Rs.5,90,000/- was not refunded by the Opposite Parties . Ultimately, the complainant served upon the Opposite Parties, a legal notice dated 4.5.2010, calling upon them, to refund the illegally deducted amount, but to no avail. It was further stated, that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence 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 by him.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written version, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was admitted that the basic price of the flat allotted to the complainant was Rs.1,18,15,000/-. It was also admitted that the amount of Rs.32,33,750/- was deposited by the complainant, by way of instalments. It was stated that the Chandigarh Administration was desirous of developing residential, commercial and other related infrastructure facilities, as an integrated project, at Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technological Park, in Chandigarh.
It was further stated that immediately after signing of the Development Agreement dated 6.10.2006, between the Opposite Parties , the Chandigarh Housing Board handed over 123.79 acres of land to Opposite Party No.1, which the said Board claimed to be unencumbered, though, in fact, it was not unencumbered. It was further stated that in January,2007, Opposite Party No.1 commenced erection of fencing, around the said land, when the Haryana Government claimed ownership over a part of the same and , as such, it (Opposite Party No.1) was stopped from carrying on its activities. On 9.2.2007, the Chandigarh Housing Board informed Opposite Party No.1, that the dispute had been resolved.
Believing the assurance given by the Chandigarh Housing Board, Opposite Party No.1, once again commenced the erection of fencing. On 15.2.2007, Opposite Party No.1 was surprised, when the Haryana Government, again raised objections, stating that the dispute had not been resolved. It was further stated that the alternate and revised demarcated land which was offered to Opposite Party No.1, by the Chandigarh Housing Board, included the land belonging to the Forest Department, on which there existed more than 200 full grown trees, and restrictions were imposed, by the Forest Department, with regard to the felling of the same, and use of this land for the project. It was further stated that since possession of the entire unencumbered land of the project, was not handed over to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, the construction could not be started, as it was an integrated project. It was further stated that a period 36 months, for the completion of project, was to commence, from the date, when possession of the entire unencumbered land of the project was to be handed over to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, which stage never arrived . It was further stated that, under these circumstances, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, were not at fault, in completing the construction. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, had not abandoned the project. Even, the dispute, has been referred to the arbitrators, and their decision is still awaited and, as such, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, if the complainant wanted the refund of amount, already deposited, he could only be refunded the same, after deduction of 5% of the basic price of the flat. It was further stated that the complainant was rightly refunded Rs.26,63,750/- out of the total deposited amount i.e. Rs.32,33,750/-, after deducting Rs.5,90,000/- i.e. 5% of the basic price of the flat which was Rs.1,18,15,000/-, as per clause 5(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement. It was denied that Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice.
4. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that, as per the Flat Buyer Agreement, Opposite Party No.3, was only to provide the land to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. It was further stated that the whole project was to be constructed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as per schedule, mentioned in the Agreement, and, in the event of non- performance of their part of the obligation, they were liable to refund the amount, alongwith interest etc. It was further stated that possession of the entire unencumbered land, was handed over to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. It was further stated according to clause 5(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement, in the event of allottees seeking refund of the deposited amount, the same was to be refunded after deducting 5% of the basic price of the unit and, as such, the amount was rightly refunded to the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid two appeals, one by Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & another appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, for setting aside the impugned order, and the second by the Chandigarh Housing Board, appellant/Opposite Party No.3 for exonerating it of its liability, to pay any amount, to the complainant and setting aside the impugned order, were filed.
8. Respondent No.1/complainant was duly served through publication, but neither he nor any legally authorized representative, on his behalf, came present. Accordingly, respondent No.1/complainant, was proceeded against ex parte.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and another, appellants/Opposite Parties in Appeal No.273/2011 submitted that, till date the Chandigarh Housing Board, has not handed over the possession of the entire unencumbered land, required for the project, in question. He further submitted that it was, under these circumstances, that the construction of the project could not be undertaken and the possession of flat could not be delivered, as it was an integrated project. He further submitted that the appellants have not abandoned the project. He further submitted that the complainant was only entitled to the refund of amount, after deduction of 5% of the basic price, in view of the provisions of clause 5(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement. He further submitted that the penal interest awarded by the District Forum, is on the higher side. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is also excessive. He further submitted that the penal order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
11. The Counsel for Chandigarh Housing Board, appellant/Opposite Party No.3, in Appeal Case No.275/2011, submitted that, it was the responsibility of the developer to construct the flats and deliver possession thereof within 36 months from 6.10.2006, the date when the Development Agreement between the Opposite Parties, was executed.
He further submitted that, as per clause 9( c)of the Flat Buyer Agreement, on account of non-delivery of possession, within the prescribed time, compensation indicated therein, could only be awarded against the developer, but the District Forum was wrong, in holding the Chandigarh Housing Board, jointly and severally liable, to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It was further submitted that according to Article 5 of the Escrow Agreement, in case of refund, the liability of Opposite Party No.3 is limited to the extent of 30% only. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.1,77,000/-, being 30% principal amount, out of Rs.5,90,000/- awarded by the District Forum, was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Escrow account on 4.11.2011. It was further submitted that the appeal be accepted and the order of the District Forum be set aside.
12. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to within which period the construction of the residential units, was likely to be completed. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant applied for the allotment of a flat. He was a allotted a flat. He deposited Rs.32,53,750/- through various instalments, towards the price of flat, which was allotted to him, as admitted by the Opposite Parties. Clause 9(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement annexure C/2, dated 25.1.2008, referred to above, which is relevant, for answering the question, posed at the outset of this paragraph, reads as under ;
Construction of the residential units is likely to be completed within a period of thirty six (36) months of the signing of the Development Agreement i.e. 06.10.2006 between the Developer and CHB and/or as may be extended in terms of the Development Agreement shall be subject to force majeure and circumstances beyond the control of the Developer, and any restrains, restrictions from any Courts/authorities. The delay in grant of environmental clearances beyond 12 months of the signing of the Development Agreement shall not be counted towards the said period of 36 months.
13. The plain reading of Clause 9(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement, extracted above, clearly goes to reveal, that the construction of the residential units, was to be completed, within a period of thirty six months of the signing of the Development Agreement dated 06.10.2006 annexure R-1/1. The time could be extended, in terms of the Development Agreement dated 6.10.2006, subject to force majeure, and the circumstances beyond the control of the developer. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 admitted, in their written reply that, in the first instance, possession of the entire project land was handed over to them by Opposite Parties No.3, and when the fencing was being done, the Haryana Govt. raised dispute with regard to the ownership of a portion of the land. It is further the case of Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, that when that dispute was resolved, and in lieu of the disputed portion of the land, possession of some other land was given to them, the same was discovered to be that of the Forest Department. Even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that the ownership of a small portion of the land was disputed, that did not mean that the construction of the residential units, could not be undertaken, on the remaining land, which constituted a major portion of the project land, and with regard whereto, there was no dispute, whatsoever. Therefore, it was not, on account of the circumstances, beyond the control of the developer, that the delay was caused, in the construction of residential units . The developer also could not take shelter of force majeure clause. No document was produced by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, that any restriction was imposed by any Court or Authority upon them, as a result whereof, they could not raise construction of the residential units, in time. Even, it was not proved, that there was delay, in the grant of environmental clearance. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, without first confirming the clear title of the land, over which the project was to be developed, started booking the flats and allotting the same to the prospective buyers, by fleecing them of huge amounts by making misleading statement, that the construction of residential units will be complete within 36 months w.e.f. 6.10.2006. Even long after the expiry of the stipulated period, not even a brick was laid, at the site, what to speak of raising construction. Opposite Parties No.1 &2, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice. It is, therefore, held that the construction of the residential units was to be completed within 36 months from 6.10.2006 i.e. by 5.10.2009.
14. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether the complainant was entitled to the refund of amount, deposited by him, with interest or not ? Clause 9(d) of the Flat Buyer Agreement annexure C/2 which is relevant, to answer this question, reads as under;
9(d) If as a result of any rules or directions of the Government or if any competent authority delays, withholds, denies the grant of necessary approvals for the Project, or if due to any force majeure conditions, the Developer is unable to deliver the unit to the Buyer, the Developer and CHB shall be liable to refund to the Buyer the amounts received from the Buyer with interest at the SBI Term Deposit Rate as applicable on the date of refund.
15. The complainant deposited instalments, in time, with the hope of getting possession of the flat allotted to him, within a period of 36 months from 10.6.2006, but all his hopes were dashed to the ground, when he found that even by the year 2009, not even a single brick had been laid, at the spot, what to speak of construction of flats, and delivery of possession thereof, to the buyers. In these circumstances, the complainant could not wait for an indefinite period. The only option with the complainant, in such circumstances, was to ask for the refund of the amount. However, the amount was refunded after deducting 5% of the basic price of the flat. He, thus, issued a legal notice annexure C8 for refund of the deducted amount, with interest, but the Opposite Parties failed to do so. The plain reading of Clause 9(d) extracted above, reveals that if the developer, for whatever the reasons may be, fails to deliver the residential unit to the buyer, the developer and the Chandigarh Housing Board, shall be liable to refund the amounts, received from the buyer, with interest, at the SBI Term Deposit Rate, as applicable, on the date of refund. The Opposite Parties were, thus, deficient, in rendering service by neither delivering the possession of the flat, within the stipulated time, nor refunding the entire amount, with interest, as provided under Clause 9(d) of the Agreement, referred to above. The complainant was, thus, entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs.32,33,750/- minus the one already refunded with interest, at the SBI term deposit rate, as per Clause 9(d) of the Agreement, referred to above, from the date of deposit till realization.
16. Coming to the submission of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, that since there was breach of Clause5(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement, by the complainant, he was entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, only after deduction of 5% of the basic price of the flat ,it may be stated here, that such an argument advanced by the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, is misconceived. Clause 5(a) of the aforesaid Agreement C/2 , reads as under ;
5(a)Timely payment of the instalments/amounts due shall be of the essence of this Agreement. If payment is not made within the period stipulated and/or the Buyer commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be liable to be cancelled. In the eventuality of cancellation, earnest money being 5% of the basic price would be forfeited and the balance, if any, would be refundable without interest. However, the sellers may allow the revival of the allotment of the unit (subject to its availability) in the name of the Buyer on payment of revival charges amounting to 10% of earnest money.
17. The plain reading of Clause 5(a) extracted above, clearly goes to show that admittedly the payment of instalments/amounts due, was the essence of the Agreement and if the payment was not made, within the stipulated period, or the buyer committed breach of any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Agreement was liable to be cancelled and the amount was to be refunded, after deduction of 5% of the basic price. The question arises, as to whether, there was default, in making the payment of instalments, or violation of any other term and condition of the Agreement aforesaid, on the part of the complainant, or not ? It was proved, as also admitted by the Opposite Parties , that the payment of instalments was made by the complainant, as and when the same fell due. There was no delay, in making payment of instalments, towards the price of the flat, on the part of the complainant. Since, after the payment of the aforesaid amount, and expiry of the period of 36 months, from 6.10.2006, not even a single brick had been laid, the complainant was left with no alternative than to ask for the refund of the amount. There was also no breach of any other term and condition of the Agreement, referred to above, on the part of the complainant. As such, the provisions of Clause 5(a), extracted above, relating to the deduction of 5% amount of the basic price, could not be invoked. The complainant was, thus, entitled to the refund of the entire amount, deposited by him minus the one already refunded, with interest. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, are affirmed. The submission of the Counsel for the Parsvnath Developers & another appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to compensation for not handing over possession to them, and for causing them physical harassment and mental agony, or not ? No doubt, clause 9( c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement, specifies as to at what rate the compensation is to be granted to the complainant, in case, the possession is not delivered in time. However, compensation was not granted, by the District Forum at the specified rate mentioned in clause 9( c). The District Forum, after taking into consideration the facts, circumstances, the physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant, granted him lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. No appeal has been filed by the complainant, challenging the inadequacy of compensation, awarded to him. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum, cannot be said to be excessive, unreasonable or unfair. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant , in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.
19. The Counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No.275 of 2011, submitted that a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- being 30% principal amount of Rs.5,90,000/- awarded by the District Forum, was deposited by the appellant in the Escrow account on 4.11.2011 and, as such, it was absolved of its liability. Even after the deposit of this amount, as submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, the appellant was not absolved of the entire liability, as it was liable to pay interest as per the terms of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
20. The District Forum, fell into an error in holding that the Chandigarh Housing Board, was jointly and severally liable with the developer to pay the compensation awarded.
According to clause 9(c) of the Agreement annexure C/2, it was only the developer, which was liable to pay the compensation and not the Chandigarh Housing Board. To this extent, the order of the District Forum requires modification.
21. The District Forum granted interest @ 18% p.a., in the event of non-compliance of the order within 45 days. It may be stated here, that the interest @ 18% awarded, on account of non-compliance of its order, within 45 days, is also on the higher side. In our opinion, the interest @ 12% p.a., on account of non-compliance of the order, could be said to be just, reasonable and fair. The order of the District Forum, in this regard, also requires modification.
22. Although, the dispute interse the Opposite Parties i.e. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and the Chandigarh Housing Board, as per clause 18 of the Escrow Agreement R-1/2 dated 1.06.2007, executed amongst them, and the State Bank of India has already been referred to the Arbitrators, yet the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a, was not barred. With a view to resolve the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is made, which reads as under ;
3.Act not in derogation of any other law.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Section 3 of the Act is worded, in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt that the provisions of the Act, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being in force. The mere fact that the other remedy of resorting to the arbitration proceedings, as per Agreement annexure R-1/2, has been availed of by the Opposite Parties, that would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of Section 3 of the Act. Similar principle of law was laid down in Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs N.K.Modi (1996)6 SCC385 and C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC233. The submission of the Counsel for the Parsvnath Developers Ltd. appellants, in appeal NO.273 of 2011, being devoid of merit is rejected.
23. For the reasons, recorded above, both the aforesaid appeals are partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with the following modifications ;
(i) that the appellants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.4,13,000/-
(as Rs.1,77,000/- out of Rs.5,90,000/- was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Escrow account on 4.11.2011)to respondent No.1/complainant with SBI term deposit rate of interest as per the Flat Buyer Agreement from 5.11.2011 till realization.
(ii) that the appellants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay interest at the SBI term deposit rate on Rs.5,90,000/- as per the Flat Buyer Agreement, from 9.7.2009 (when the amount of Rs.26,63,750/- out of Rs.32,53,750/- was refunded) till 4.11.2011 (when a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board, in the Escrow account).
(iii) that only Parsvnath Developers Ltd. shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum, for harassment and mental agony, caused to the complainant, and the Chandigarh Housing Board shall not be liable to pay the same.
(iv) that the direction of the District Forum regarding the grant of penal interest @ 18% p.a. on non-compliance of the order within 45 days, is modified, and instead the Opposite Parties, are ordered to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the payable amounts, on account of non-compliance of the order, within the period stipulated by the District Forum.
(v) the remaining reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, shall remain unaltered.
24.. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
25. The file be consigned to the Record Room, after compliance .
Sd/-
Announced (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) May1,2012 President Sd/-
( NEENA SANDHU) *Js Member STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal Case No. 275 of 2011Date of institution: 10.10.2011 Date of decision :
Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
. Appellant Versus
1. Vivek Chawla , Resident of House No.3469, Sector-35-D, Chandigarh.
2. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. through its Director, SCO -1, First floor, Sector-26, Chandigarh.
3. The Director, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Regd.& Corporate office, 6th Floor, Arunachal Building,19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi .
.. Respondents.
Present: Ms.Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent No.1 ex parte.
Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs, in terms of our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, in connected Appeal case bearing No.273 of 2011 titled as Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & another Vs Vivek Chawla & another. A copy of that order be placed on this file, which shall form part of this order.
2. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
3. The file be consigned to the record room.
Sd/-
sd/= (NEENA SANDHU) (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) Member President