State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017
Date of Institution : 23.05.2017
Date of Reserve : 05.04.2018
Date of Decision : 18.04.2018
Mr. Satish Kumar Bagga son of Sh. Jiwan Singh, resident of B-62,
DLF Colony, Patiala, Punjab.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited, through its Director,
having its Registered Office at P.O. Rayon and Silk Mills, Adjoining
Coca Cola Depot, G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar - 143105.
2. M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited, through its
Authorized Signatory, Site Office at Sector 85, District S.A.S Nagar,
Mohali - 160062 (Pb.)
....Opposite parties
3. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited having its Registered
Office at M-63 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110
001
...Proforma Op
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 2
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
For opposite parties No.1&2: Sh. Tejeshwar Singh, Advocate
For opposite party No. 3: Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainant has 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 the complainant had launched their project Wave Estate in Sector 99, Mohali. The complainant is re-allottee of the flat, which was originally allotted in the name of Mr. Rajwinder Singh for a total sale price of Rs. 55,73,400/- including BSP of Rs. 53,08,000/- i.e. Flat No. 13, Ground Floor, to be constructed on a flat having area of 252.900 square yards with salable area of 1343 sq. ft. Vide letter dated 1.11.2013, this flat was transferred in the name of the complainant from the name of Rajwinder Singh. Independent residential floor allottee(s) arrangement was executed between the complainant and Ops on 5.3.2015. The complainant alongwith the Ops entered into tripartite agreement with Op No. 3 from whom it had raised a loan and the payment was to be made to the Ops as per the terms of the tripartite agreement. Out of the total sum of Rs. 53,08,000/-, the complainant has already made a payment of Rs. 49,81,616/- against the demand of Rs. 52,48,444.58p. As per Clause No. 5.1, the Ops were to deliver Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 3 the possession within 24 months alongwith extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. However, in this case, the period of 24 months is to be counted from 5.5.2013 because after receiving more than 25%, the Ops delayed the execution of the agreement for a period of about 2 years. Ops failed to deliver the possession of the flat as agreed. Alleging deficiency in services on the part of Ops, this complaint has been filed by the complainant with a direction to the Ops as under:-
(i) To refund the entire amount of Rs. 49,81,616/-
deposited by the complainant towards the flat in question, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the respective due dates of deposit till realization.
(ii) To pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 3 Lacs on account of mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and financial loss caused to the complainant.
(iii) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac to the complainants.
(iv) Or any other directions which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written replies. Op Nos. 1 & 2 in their written reply filed through Mr. Raghav Sharma, their authorized signatory took the preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act as the complainant already owns a big Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 4 residential unit at Patiala i.e. B-62, DLF Colony, Patiala and the present flat was booked by the complainant for investment purposes; the complainant failed to adhere to the payment plan as a sum of Rs. 2,66,828.58p is outstanding. The complainant was required to make timely payment, otherwise, he was liable to make this payment alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and in case of default, Ops further reserve its right to forfeit the earnest money; the complaint is premature as it was filed before expiry of 30 months period as provided under the agreement from the date of execution of the agreement. Under the agreement, the Ops also paid pre-EMI interest to Op No. 3 amounting to Rs. 5,18,753/-. There was no fixed period to deliver the possession and under Clause 5.1, it has been mentioned that Ops shall make endeavor to complete the project as far as possible within 30 months, failing which the Ops shall be liable to pay penal charges @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month on the super area of the flat. The complainant has prayed for refund, which is not maintainable under the agreement and terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement; the delay occurred as Ops had entered into MOA with the Government of Punjab under which Government of Punjab was to acquire some land, which was falling in the critical area of the Ops under the Land Acquisition Act and road network was also provided by the GMADA and the State Government failed to acquire the land for the Ops i.e. 23.21 acres, which falls within the master plan of the project and the GMADA failed to connect the project with the roads to be constructed by them. Ultimately, the Ops purchased some land from the farmers Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 5 directly to provide access to the project. Therefore, the project was delayed due to the reasons beyond the control of Ops; the State Commission does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as intricate questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court and that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, therefore, complaint is not maintainable and the same be dismissed. On merits, it has been submitted that it is a matter of record that earlier the flat was allotted in favour of Rajwinder Singh and lateron it was transferred in the name of the complainant. Residential floor allottee(s) arrangement was executed between the complainant and Ops on 5.3.2015 and according to Clause 5.1 of the agreement, it was provided to make every endeavor to deliver the possession to the allottee within a period of 3 months but it delayed due to the reasons as referred in the preliminary objections. Further the complainant also failed to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,66,828.58p. No deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
3. Op No. 3 in its reply stated that this Op is just a proforma party as the complaint is mainly against Op Nos. 1 & 2, however, the complainant had approached this Op to avail a loan facility to the tune of Rs. 42 Lacs for the purchase of Flat No. 13, ground floor, Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali and that tripartite agreement was executed between the complainant, Op Nos. 1 & 2 and this Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 6 Complaint is without merit. In parawise reply, it was again reiterated that the allegations are against Op Nos. 1 & 2. Op No. 3 is a financial institution from which complainant has raised a loan, therefore, this complaint is without merit and it be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act with special costs.
4. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of his complaint. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit of Satish Kumar Bagga as Ex. C-A and documents Exs. C-1/A to C-5. On the other hand, Ops Nos. 1 & 2 have tendered affidavit of Amarjit Singh, Auth. Signatory as Ex. OP-1/A and documents Exs. Op-1/1 to Op-1/20. Op No. 3 had tendered affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar as Ex. Op-3/A.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents on the record with the assistance of the counsel for the complainant.
6. Some preliminary objections have been taken by Op Nos. 1 & 2, which are required to be redressed before taking the complaint on merits. It has been stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act because he has already a bigger residential Unit at Patiala. However, the complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned that his family has expanded manifold so to fulfill its dreams and requirement of the space and for self living purpose, he has purchased this Flat No. 13, Ground Floor from Mr. Rajwinder Singh for a total sale price of Rs. 55,73,400/- including BSP of Rs. Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 7 53,08,000/-, which was lateron transferred by the Ops in his name. With regard to ownership of the complainant's house at Patiala as alleged in the written reply, no document was placed on the record by Op Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant is owner of the said unit. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the complainant is the owner of the said house, there is no legal bar for him that he cannot book another apartment at another location. No documentary evidence has been placed on the record by Op Nos. 1 & 2 that previously the complainant was 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 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 Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 8 the apartment was booked by the complainant for investment purposes cannot be accepted.
7. It was argued by the counsel for the Ops that according to Clause 5.1, it was provided that the developer shall endeavor to complete the development of the project as far as possible within 30 months, therefore, no fixed period. But counsel for the complainant has argued that under PAPRA, Ops are required to get outer date as to when the construction of the flat will be completed and in this regard, he has relied upon the judgment I (2017) CPJ 17 (NC) "Ashish Oberai versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited". It was mentioned that the Company shall endeavor to deliver the possession unless prevented by act of God or the reasons specifically stated in Clause 8 or 3.3 of the Buyers Agreement. The Op was under a contractual obligation to complete the construction, obtain the occupation certificate, and hand over the possession of the villa, complete in all respects to the complainant within 30 months from the date of the buyers agreement. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the completion of the construction and offer of possession has been delayed for the reasons specifically stated in Clause 8 or 33. In the present case, it has been stated that there was Memorandum of Understanding between the Ops and the State of Punjab under which State of Punjab was to acquire some land for the Ops under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 23.21 acres area falling in the critical area i.e. approach to the project of the Ops, which the State Government failed to acquire and that the Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 9 road network was to be provided by the GMADA. In case there is any problem with the State Government, not to acquire the land for the Ops, the matter is between the Ops and the State of Punjab. Under the PAPRA, unless and until title vest with the Ops, they could not launch the project, therefore, they should have taken care all these problem before launching of the project, therefore, it cannot be said to be a reason for the delay. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the Ops that Ops were only to make endeavor and period of 30 months was not a specific period.
8. It was further argued that complaint is premature because 30 months are to be taken from the date of agreement i.e. 5.3.2015 executed between the complainant and Op Nos. 1 & 2, whereas the complaint was filed on 23.5.2017 prior to completion of 30 months from the date of execution of the agreement. An application under Section 26 of the CP Act was moved by the Ops to dismiss the complaint on this ground and that application was dismissed by this Commission vide its order dated 26.10.2017. No appeal / revision was filed by the Ops against this order and once that order has become absolute then Ops do not reserve any right to raise this issue against at the time of final arguments.
9. Another objection taken by Ops Nos. 1 & 2 is with regard to complicated questions of law and facts involved, therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court. In case we go through the pleadings of the parties, the complainant purchased one flat from Ops and had paid a sum of Rs. 49,81,616/-. In this Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 10 case, there is no complicated question of law and facts involved as it is only the interpretation of documents and then to see whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. We do not see that any complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. The benches of this Commission are headed by retired High Court Judges/retired District & Session Judges, who have long experience at their back and are fully competent to decide such like matters. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment of "Dr. J.J. Merchant and others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi", 2002(6) SCC 635 wherein it was held that 'the State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired High Court Judges and officers of District Judge level and in our view, this is not such a case which cannot be decided by the 'Consumer Fora' after obtaining evidence and if need be after getting an expert opinion'. Further reference can be made to "Shiv Kumar Agarwal versus Arun Tandon and another", 2007(2) CLT 287, decided by the Hon'ble National Commission. In that case a plea that case involves complicated questions of fact and law and will need expert evidence, which is not possible in the summary proceedings adopted by the Consumer Fora repelled - Consumer Forum which is headed by Senior Judicial Officers, are capable of dealing with even complex questions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Commission is fully competent to decide this complaint and no cause of action is made out to refer the case to the Civil Court.
Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 11
10. It is an admitted fact between the parties that originally flat No. 13, ground floor, Wave Estate in Sector 99, Mohali was booked in the name of Rajwinder Singh and lateron Rajwinder Singh moved an application Ex. C-1/C for transfer of Flat No. 13, Ground Floor in Sector 99, Wave Estate, Mohali and it was transferred in the name of complainant vide letter dated 1.11.2013 Ex. C-1/B. Then Independent Resident Floor Allottee Arrangement dated 5.3.2015 was executed between the Ops and the complainant. As per the statement of account Ex. C-5 against a demand of Rs. 52,48,444.58p, the complainant has made a payment of Rs. 49,81,616/- and only the payment of Rs. 2,66,828.58p is outstanding against the complainant. The complainant stated that he did not make this payment because there was no progress at the site as agreed by them. The counsel for the complainant further stated that the complainant is ready to make this payment in case Ops have the completion certificate and are ready to deliver the possession of the flat even today but during the course of arguments, counsel for the Ops was unable to refer to any completion certificate or to say that the flat is complete in all respects as agreed by them and that they are ready to hand over the possession. Under Section 3 (2)(j) of PAPRA, it has been provided not to allow any person to enter into possession until an occupation certificate required under any law is duly given by the appropriate authority under that law and no person shall take possession of an apartment until such occupation certificate is obtained. Further under Section 14(1)(ii), in the case of a colony, to Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 12 obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all respects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5, therefore, the Ops have raised a mega project, it is duly covered under the term of colony, therefore, they are required to get the completion certificate with regard to development work as contemplated under the licence issued to the Ops but the Ops have failed to place on the record any occupation certificate or the completion certificate. In that background, the complainant has a right to withhold the further payments.
11. Even if the date 5.3.2015 is taken, 30 months will be completed by 5.9.2017 but till date, the Ops are not sure as to when they will get the completion certificate of their development works in their project. In case the Ops have taken the maximum payment in this case upto 95% but failed to deliver the possession within the agreed time, then it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. In this regard we are fortified by 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 order was passed in I (2017) CPJ 113 "Vishal Issar v. Park Wood Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 13 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. It is settled that in case the Ops fails to deliver the possession within the agreed time then the complainant has a right to withdraw from the scheme and to claim for the refund. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment reported in 2017(1) CPR 168 (NC) "Sanjay Kumar versus Sahara Prime City Limited & others" it was held that allottee is entitled to withdraw from the scheme in the event of delay in completion of the project. He has referred to another judgment i.e. First Appeal No. 1456 of 2017 "RDB Legend Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. & 2 Ors. Versus MKN Srinivasa Rao"
decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 18.1.2018 against the order passed by the State Commission. In that case, the refund of the amount deposited alongwith 12% was ordered. In this case, 60% of the total sale consideration was paid by the complainant but Ops failed to deliver the possession. Here in this case when 95% of the payment has been made and the balance was to be paid at the time of possession, therefore, there was no default on the part of the complainant, therefore, it cannot be said to be a default on the part of the complainant. It was withheld Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 14 because of non-completion of the work by the Ops and even till date, the Ops are not certain as to when they will get the completion certificate and to deliver the possession in favor of the complainant. In those circumstances, the refund order can be passed in favour of the complainant.
12. It has been mentioned in the reply that as per Clause 5.1 every endeavor shall be made to complete the construction within time and as per 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 complainant that in case of late payment, the Ops are claiming interest @ 18% then similar treatment be given to the complainant. It is one sided agreement which proves from the fact that in case of default on the part of complainant, she has to pay 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 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 Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 15 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, 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 Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 16 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 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 Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 17 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 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 Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 18 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."
13. 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.
14. What will be the rate of interest in this case? 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:-
"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 Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 19 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.
15. No other point was raised.
16. Sequel to the above, we allow the complaint and direct Ops No. 1 & 2 as under:-
(i) to refund a sum of Rs. 49,81,616/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the various dates of deposit till actual payment, minus Pre-EMI interest of Rs.
5,18,753/- already paid by Ops Nos. 1 & 2 to Op No. 3 The payment was made by Op No. 3 under Subvention Plan, therefore, Op No. 3 will have a preferential right to recover the amount due to it as a first charge and the balance payment, if any, will be paid to the complainant.
(ii) Ops No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lac as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment by making arrangements of various payments, visiting the Ops but Ops failed to complete the project.
(iii) pay Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above directions be complied by Ops No. 1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 20 the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against Ops Nos. 1 & 2.
17. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
18. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER April 18, 2018.
as