State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neelam Monga vs Divine Associates on 21 March, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DATE OF DECISION : 21.03.2017
(1) First Appeal No. 828 of 2015
Date of institution : 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No. 323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No. 03, DDA Community Centre, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi - 110085
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector-18, Noida-201301(UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire, Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur-
Punjab.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Balbir Singh, R/o Flat No. 136, Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh,
Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
2. Krishna Devi, R/o Flat No. 136, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
....Respondents/Complainants
(2) First Appeal No.830 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 2
Neelam Monga, Owner of Fiat Flat No.242 Solitaire, Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(3) First Appeal No.831 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Amit Sabharwal, Owner of Flat No.252 (Block-II) Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(4) First Appeal No.832 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Purnendu Bala w/o Sh. Som Dutt Bhardwaj, Owner of Flat No.125
(Block-I), Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(5) First Appeal No.833 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 3
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Umesh Prasad Owner of Flat No.214, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur. .
Respondent
(6) First Appeal No.834 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
1. Pardeep Sharma
2. Ashu Sharma
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.224, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(7) First Appeal No.835 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Veena Rani Owner of Flat No.232, Divine Associates, Solitaire
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondents
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 4
(8) First Appeal No.836 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
1. Pardip Kaur
2. Rajwant Singh
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.233 (Block-II) Solitaire
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondents
(9) First Appeal No.837 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Abhishek Dwevedi, Owner of Flat No.253 (Block-II) Divine
Associates, Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(10) First Appeal No.838 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 5
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
1. Ramesh Gupta
2. Shraddha Gupta
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.255 (Block-II) Solitaire
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondents
(11) First Appeal No.839 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Chitranjan Kumar, r/o Flat No.146 (Block-I), Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(12) First Appeal No.840 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Owner of Flat No.163 (Block-I), Solitaire
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondents
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 6
(13) First Appeal No.841 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
1. Mr. Amit Lath
2. Monika Lath
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.123 (Block-I) Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondents
(14) First Appeal No.842 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Karamveer Singh, r/o Flat No.116, Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh,
Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
(15) First Appeal No.843 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine
Associates, F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 7
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, M/s Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Appellants
Versus
Karan Singh Ranga, Owner of Flat No.263 (Block-II) Solitaire
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 28.5.2015
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Counsel Present in F.A. Nos. 828, 830 to 843 of 2015:-
For the appellants : Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate
For the respondents : Shri Sansar Kundu, Advocate
(16) First Appeal No.811 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
1. Mr. Amit Lath
2. Monika Lath
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.123, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(17) First Appeal No.812 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 8
Neelam Monga, Owner of Fiat Flat No.242 (Block-II) Solitaire,
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(18) First Appeal No.813 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Mrs. Veena Rani residing Owner of Flat No.232, Divine
Associates, Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(19) First Appeal No.814 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
1. Ramesh Gupta
2. Shraddha Gupta
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.255, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 9
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(20) First Appeal No.815 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Karan Singh Ranga, Owner of Flat No.263, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(21) First Appeal No.816 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
1. Mr. Balbair Singh
2. Mrs. Krishana Devi
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.136, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(22) First Appeal No.817 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 10
1. Pardeep Sharma
2. Ashu Sharma
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.224, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot No.03, DDA
Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(23) First Appeal No.818 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Abhishek Dwivedi, Owner of Flat No.253, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(24) First Appeal No.819 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma residing Owner of Flat No.163, Divine
Associates, Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 11
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(25) First Appeal No.820 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Karamveer Singh, Owner of Flat No.116, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(26) First Appeal No.821 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Umesh Prasad Owner of Flat No.214, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(27) First Appeal No.822 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Chitranjan Kumar, Owner of Flat No.146, Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 12
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(28) First Appeal No.823 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
1. Pardip Kaur
2. Rajwant Singh
Both are residing Owner of Flat No.233 (Block-II) Solitaire
Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
(29) First Appeal No.824 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Mrs. Purnendu Bala residing Owner of Flat No.125, Divine
Associates, Solitaire Divine, Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 13
(30) First Appeal No.825 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.07.2015
Amit Sabharwal, Owner of Flat No.252 (Block-II) Solitaire Divine,
Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine
Associates, Commercial Unit No.323, Aggarwal Plaza, Plot
No.03, DDA Community Center, Sector-14, Rohini, New
Delhi-110085.
2. The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates,
F-32, Sector 18, Noida-201301 (UP).
3. The Head Incharge/Project Manager, Divine Associates,
Solitaire Dinine Village-Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur,
Punjab.
Respondents
First Appeal against order dated 28.05.2015 of
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
SAS Nagar Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Counsel Present in F.A. Nos. 811 to 825 of 2015:-
For the appellants : Sh.Sansar Kundu, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
This order will dispose of all the First Appeal Nos. 811 to 825, 828 and 830 to 843 of 2015 arising out of the order dated 28.5.2015 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 526 of 2014 and title of the other complaints is as under:-
1. CC 527 of 2014 Pardeep Vs. The Managing Sharma & Director or Head another Incharge, Divine Associates First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 14 Pardip Kaur &
2. CC 528 of 2014 Vs -do-
another Sanjeev Kumar
3. CC 529 of 2014 Vs -do-
Sharma Amit
4. CC 530 of 2014 Vs -do-
Sabharwal
5. CC 531 of 2014 Umesh Prasad Vs -do-
Karan Singh
6. CC 532 of 2014 Vs -do-
Ranga
7. CC 533 of 2014 Neelam Monga Vs -do-
Ramesh Gupta
8. CC 534 of 2014 Vs -do-
& another Karamveer
9. CC 535 of 2014 Vs -do-
Singh Chitranjan
10. CC 536 of 2014 V -do-
Kumar Amit Lath &
11. CC 537 of 2014 Vs -do-
another Abhishek
12. CC 679 of 2014 Vs -do-
Dwivedi
13. CC 680 of 2014 Purnendu Bala Vs -do-
14. CC 681 of 2014 Gaurav Kumar Vs -do-
15. CC 682 of 2014 Veena Rani Vs -do-
vide which the complaints filed by the complainants were allowed with the directions to Ops as under:-
"(a) to remove/rectify the defects in the flats of the complainants as specified and highlighted by them in their respective complaints particularly oil bound distemper and POP, provision of RO water supply throughout the flat and not only in kitchen as is being done, provide modular kitchen, anti skid tiles in the bathrooms and master bed room, wood work as per agreement and intercom facility within the flats. This exercise be conducted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 15
(b) To complete all the basic facilities and amenities as per terms of allotment letter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and not to charge the maintenance of common areas and facilities from the complainants till the existence of complete, proper and effective basic amenities and facilities.
(c) to refund the amount received from the respective flat owners on account of maintenance charges received till date alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till realization within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(d) to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.
Fifty thousand only) to each complainant for causing mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(e) to get the completion certificate from the competent authority and provide a copy of the same to all the flat owners including the present complainants within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(f) to refund Rs.7,000/- (Rs. Seven thousand only) to complainant Balbir Singh & another in complaint No.526 of 2014 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 16 a certified copy of this order charged for parking lot alongwith rate of interest @ 9% per annum and remove the dead stock stored by the complainant from the parking slot allotted to the said complainant with immediate effect."
2. For convenience, the names of the parties will be referred as referred in the complaints. Since all the complaints are similar so their facts are taken from Complaint No. 526 of 2014 titled as "Balbir Singh & Anr. Versus The Managing Director or Head Incharge, M/s Divine Associates & Others".
3. Complaint was filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that Ops launched their project, namely, Solitaire Divine in Village Himmatgarh, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Punjab. Accordingly, the complainants booked one flat in the project of Ops. Lateron, buyer's agreement was executed between the parties and according to the agreement, the date of possession was fixed as 31.3.2013. It was further averred that as on 31.3.2013, 85% consideration amount was paid by the complainants, however, the Ops failed to deliver the actual possession by the stipulated date and it was given a long thereafter. After taking the physical possession of the flat, it came to notice of the complainants that Ops had used inferior quality of material for the construction of the flat and did not provide those facilities, which were mentioned, agreed and promised in the agreement letter and the brochure. First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 17 They also failed to complete the legal requirements as they did not get the completion certificate from the competent authority and without getting it, they were not competent to deliver the actual physical possession. The complainants noted the following problems/short comings in the flat.
"(i) That as per the agreement, Oil bound distemper on POP Plaster/Putty was to be used, but not only an inferior quality but also dry distemper instead of oil bound distemper has been used by the respondents company which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(ii) That as per the clause-10 of the allotment letter, it was promised by the respondents company that R.O. treated water supply will be provided for all flats whereas only individual R.O. has been provided to each flat which is also a violation of the agreement.
(iii) As per the information brochure of the project, it was shown by the respondents company that Capsule Glass lift would be provided in the society but instead of giving this facility an inferior type of simple glass lifts have been provided to the complainants in the society which is a violation of the terms and conditions.
(iv) That as per the information brochure of the project, it was promised by the respondents company that Entrance Lobby would be air conditioned but till today this facility has First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 18 not been provided to the complainants which is also a violation of the terms and conditions.
(v) That as per the agreement, it was promised that Modular Kitchen would be provided to the complainants but only some cabinets are modular and remaining all cabinets are simple in nature. Also inferior type of wooden work has been done in the kitchen which is also a violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(vi) That as per the agreement, it was also promised by the respondents company to the complainants that the anti skid tiles would be fixed in all the bathrooms but in the bathroom of the master bedroom slippery tiles of inferior quality have been provided. It is very risky and is a violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(vii) That as per the agreement, powder coated aluminum/UPVC external window shutters were to be provided by the respondents company and as per information brochure teak wood was to be used in windows/doors in the flat of the complainants but very poor quality wood work has been done. This is a violation of specifications committed by the respondents company.
(viii) As per information brochure Jaquar/porko or equivalent bath fittings were to be provided but the bathroom showers in the flat of the complainants are not of First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 19 Jaquar/porko or equivalent quality but some un-branded inferior quality shower fittings have been used which is a violation of specifications on your part.
(ix) As per the agreement, intercom was to be provided between the apartments by the respondents company to the complainants but same is not completely provided so far and hand set has not been provided. It is a violation of terms and conditions of agreement.
(x) Parking slot of the complainants remained partially under occupation of company office upto March, 2014 which put the complainants under unnecessary inconvenience and hardship. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- (@ Rs. 1,000/- p.m.) as rent for seven months be paid to the complainants.
(xi) As per clause 13.6 of allotment letter, the physical possession of flat was to be given by 31st March, 2013, failing which company is liable to pay Rs. 4/- per sq. feet of super area per month. But the flats were not ready for possession and physical possession was handed over to the complainants on 1.9.2013. Therefore, a compensation for this delayed period of five months comes to Rs. 37,880/-.
(xii) Vide letter dated 2.3.2013 the respondents company asked the complainants to make payment of last instalment alongwith MMS charges and IFMS which the complainants paid well in time but the possession was not delivered as First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 20 promised in the letter under reference which put the complainants under unnecessary financial burden.
Therefore, interest @ 24% p.a. which the company has charged from the flat owners on delayed payment be paid to the complainants.
(xiii) That the complainants had purchased the flat for living peacefully in an honourable and respectful manner with his family. But the overall experience of the complainants with the respondent's company project staff is very humiliating and full of harassment. The team catering to the project is inexperienced, incompetent, inefficient, arrogant and very rude in their behavior. That the complainants used to visit company site office frequently for removal of defects, his requests fell deaf ear every time. It is also not out of place to mention here that Mr. Ravinder, Project Engineer, misbehaved with the complainants only two days after shifting to his flat, when he visited the site office for the rectification of defects. This incident was immediately brought to the notice of company staff at Head Office. This is why the complainants' flat is still incomplete as compared to specifications.
(xiv) As per the information brochure of the project, facilities like Steam Room, Sauna, Jacuzzi, Spa, Separate Children's pool were to be provided but these facilities have not been First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 21 provided till date to the complainants. This is a violation of terms and conditions of the project.
(xv) As per the agreement, effective type of security was to be provided by the respondents company to the complainants but the security facility is lethargic due to which the safety and security of the complainants and his/her family members is being compromised.
(xvi) That the respondents company has taken monthly maintenance charges for one year in advance from the complainants along with interest free maintenance security. However, till date no agreement has been done by the respondents company with the complainants for facility management services. Head wise breakup of costs to be incurred by the company on account of monthly maintenance charges taken from the complainants has not been provided. Facilities to be provided as part of maintenance services in lieu of advance maintenance charges taken from the complainants has not been provided to the complainants. That without providing the maintenance facilities the respondents company is charging maintenance or also demanding further/future maintenance. It is also a violation on their part.
(xvii) That as per information brochure of the project the company had committed to provide 24 hours power backup First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 22 facility in the society. Further 1 KVA power backup was to be provided for the flats at no extra cost. But till date power backup facility has not been started even for common facilities like Lifts/Street lights/corridor lights etc due to which the complainants are living in the society without power backup facility for the last 11 months. No sub meter has been installed for the individual flat for recording and showing the consumption of units by individual flat through power backup and the company is proposing to charge Rs. 30 per hour for power backup which is an unreasonable, illogical and exorbitant amount as it has no relation with the actual consumption of electricity but is totally linked with time for which power backup generator system is run. (xviii) That as per allotment letter, it is nowhere mentioned that the ownership of Club Solitaire will be with the company and it is also nowhere mentioned in the allotment letter that the company has right to sell club solitaire. However, at the time of execution of legal documents of flats, a clause has been included by the respondents company with malafide/fraudulent intentions which mentions that the commercial area, swimming pool, club are not included in the common area, the company is entitled to sell the same separately. This is a gross violation of the terms of allotment letter.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 23(xix) That the flat was sold to the complainants based on super area. That as per allotment letter, it was mentioned that at the time of handing over possession of flat, exact calculations of super area will be provided to the complainants. But exact calculations of super area of flat have never been explained to the complainants. This is a violation of terms of agreement.
(xx) That as per allotment letter issued to the complainants, point no. 8 (Club Membership) mentions that "the company shall operate, maintain and manage community facilities such as Sports & Health Club being constructed under the scheme under the name and style of "Club Solitaire". The allotment letter has no mention that the Multi Purpose Hall for Birthdays/Receptions/Conferences and Swimming Pool are part of sports and health club and hence the same cannot be maintained and charged separately by the company. Accordingly, if any restrictions/charges are imposed by Divine Associates over the use of multipurpose hall/swimming pool are in gross violation of the terms and conditions of allotment letter.
(xxi) That as per allotment letter issued to the complainants, the proportionate share of common areas has been divided among the flat owners based on which super built up area of flat have been arrived at. Therefore, the common areas cannot be controlled/managed by the respondents company. First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 24 Hence the restrictions/charges imposed by the respondents company for use of common areas and common facilities are in gross violation of agreement.
(xxii) It was also told by Mr. Vikas Sharma, Marketing Incharge, that 1 KVA Power Backup, indoor Games, Gym, Swimming Pool etc. are included in the maintenance services without any extra charges but now the respondents company is planning to charge separately for all these facilities which are also a violation. Therefore, deficiency in service, harassment and inconvenience has been faced by the complainants due to improper and insufficient common maintenance services etc."
These problems/short comings were brought to the notice of the Ops from time to time but the Ops did not take any initiative. On 11.6.2014, a legal notice was served upon the Ops. Abovesaid act and conduct of the Ops amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking following directions against Ops:-
(a) to rectify all the defects and to provide all the facilities as per the agreement.
(b) Not to take maintenance charges against those facilities which are not started so far and which are not as per agreement. The maintenance charges may be started only after company gets completion certificate from PUDA First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 25 and makes agreement with the complainants in this regard.
(c) to pay Rs. 16 lacs alongwith interest as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade services and harassment as mentioned above.
(d) to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation charges.
4. Complaint was contested by Ops, who filed their written reply in the form of affidavit stating that the complaint has been filed on wrong facts, therefore, legally not maintainable; the District Forum did not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of Clause 24 in the allotment letter, duly accepted by the complainant that "if any complaint arises out of this allotment letter then only High Court of Delhi and subordinate Courts thereto have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint"; launching of the project has been admitted by the Ops. The Company had agreed to issue offer of possession by 31.3.2013, subject to various conditions as agreed between the parties and after receiving full and final payment. The Company had used best quality material as outlined in the allotment letter. After receiving the completion from the Architects, notice of completion was sent to the statutory authority and responsibility of issuing the completion certificate rested with the statutory authority. The complainants after verifying the physical condition of the flat and all antecedence submitted an indemnity-cum-undertaking acknowledging the flat to be completely in accordance with the terms agreed and stated that complainants had no complaint First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 26 whatsoever now or anytime in future, therefore, averments in the complaint that there were short comings in the construction are incorrect. The short comings as mentioned in para No. 1 to 22 as detailed in the complaint were specifically denied. It was stated that RO system for treatment water as per the agreement was provided. The Ops provided lift in the complex. The Ops provided modular kitchen in each and every flat. The Company fixed anti skid tiles in the bathroom and master bedroom. The Company provided wooden frames and door shutter and window shutter as agreed and approved by the Architect. The specifications were provisional subject to revision by the statutory authority. It provided infrastructure intercom facility. The Ops issued offer of possession to the complainants to complete legal formalities and to settle his dues immediately so as to enable the Company to get atleast 15 days to complete the legal formalities. The complainants himself delayed the payment of the balance amount and to take over the physical possession for which Ops are not liable. The club Solitaire was developed inside the Complex but the complainants do not intend to utilize any facility and are raising issues just for academic interest. The Ops were willing to add more facilities but the complainants are not using facilities upto the extent to enable their maintenance. The operation, running, repair, maintenance and management of the Complex is the joint responsibility of various allottees and the Ops. The Ops were to render all services either directly or through its nominated agency by charging monthly maintenance charges as decided by it. Ops were not liable to First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 27 provide breakup of the cost on account of monthly maintenance charges. In case the complainants are defaulting them, they are liable to pay alongwith interest @ 24% as per the agreed terms. Power backup facility as agreed is available in the complex but the complainants are liable to pay the repair, maintenance and management charges. There was no mention that Multipurpose Hall and swimming pool being part of "Club Solitaire". It was denied that 1 KVA power backup, indoor games, gym, swimming pool etc. were included in the maintenance services without any extra charges. There was no deficiency in services on the part of Ops. The complainants filed a false complaint before SHO, PS, Zirakpur. There is no merit in the complaint. It be dismissed.
5. Before the District Forum, the parties tendered their respective evidence.
6. After going through the averments made in the complaint, written reply filed by Ops, evidence and documents on the record, the complaint filed by the complainants were allowed with the directions to Ops as mentioned in Para No. 1 of the order.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, Appeal Nos. 811 to 825 of 2015 have been filed by the complainants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the District Forum whereas Appeal Nos. 828, 830 to 843 of 2015 have been filed by Ops for setting aside the impugned order.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 28
9. The counsel for the Ops Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate has argued that the order passed by the District Forum is against the pleadings, evidence and documents on the record. There is no reason to pass the order with regard to refund of the maintenance alongwith interest and similarly in case there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops then compensation of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be allowed to each complainant on account of any mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. Whereas the counsel for the complainants rebutting the arguments raised by the counsel for the Ops stated that the order passed by the District Forum is strictly in accordance with the agreement between the parties. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- allowed as compensation is quite reasonable amount of compensation, rather, the District Forum has wrongly observed that the complainants are not entitled to any late delivery of possession, in fact there was delay in delivery of possession to the complainants beyond the agreed date for which the Ops are required to pay the penal charges agreed between the parties in the agreement.
10. Firstly coming to the RO water supply throughout the flat and not only in the kitchen, the counsel for the Ops stated that RO Water supply is made only for drinking water, therefore, kitchen is the appropriate place to provide the RO water facility. It is not for bathing purposes, therefore, it was not required to be given in bath rooms and certainly, there is no provision of tap in the bedrooms, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum directing Ops to provide RO water supply throughout the flat is not First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 29 in consonance with the agreement between the parties. The terms between the parties have been given in the letter of allotment placed on the record in Complaint No. 526 of 2014 as Ex. C-1. It has been provided in Clause 10 'other facilities', which reads as under;-
"10. OTHER FACILITIES
1. The Company shall provide facilities like High Speed Elevators, Treated Water Supply (RO), Fire Fighting Systems, Rain Water Harvesting along with manicured green parkas and tree lined pathways without any additional cost. However in case any additional facility is provided under the scheme due to any statutory obligation or any advice of the architects, the same shall be charged extra.
2. The Running, Repair operation, Maintenance and Management charges as decided by the Company shall have to paid by each individual as and when demanded for such all facilities."
In case we go through this Clause, there is provision with regard to treated water supply (RO), it does not state that it will be provided throughout the flat. In normal course, RO water is used for drinking purposes only and not for bathing purposes, therefore, in case Ops have provided RO drinking water in the kitchen i.e. sufficient compliance of the Clause 10 of the allotment letter. Therefore, we do not agree with the order passed by the District Forum in Clause 'a' for making provision of RO water throughout the flat. First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 30
11. It has been further directed in Clause 'a' to provide oil bound distemper and POP, modular kitchen, anti skid tiles in the bathrooms and master bed room, wood work and intercom facility as per the agreement. The specifications to be provided in the flat have been referred in Clause No. 03, which reads as under:-
"03. Building Plans and Specifications
1. The Flat, common areas and the roads/pavements shall be finished with specifications as given below:
Structure RCC Frame Earthquake Resistant Structure Flooring Drawing/Dining/Kitchen Vitrified Tiles All Bedrooms Vitrified Tiles Toilet/Balconies Ceramic Tiles Common Areas Kota Stone/ Marble Road/Pavements Cement/Concrete/Pavers Doors & Windows Frames Hardwood Door Shutters Designer Internal Flush Door Shutters Window Shutters Powder coated Aluminium/UPVC External Window Shutters Hardware Powder Coated/ Stainless Steel Wall Cladding Kitchen Ceramic Tiles upto 7 ft. height Toilets Ceramic Tiles upto 7 ft. height Finishing Internal Oil Bound Distemper on POP Plaster/Putti in All Rooms External Texture Paint Sanitary Ware/ Toilets Hindware/Parryware or Fittings equivalent Kitchen Stainless Steel Sink C.P. Fittings Toilets/Kitchen Superior Quality C.P. Fittings Electrical Fittings All Rooms Cooper Concealed Wiring in & Fixtures Conduits with modular switches ( as per ISI Codes) Wood Work All Bedrooms Wooden Wardrobes Modular Kitchen Kitchen Modular Cabinets in Kitchen First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 31 General All Rooms Provision for TV and Telephone It provides modular kitchen, in the drawing/dining/kitchen and in the bedrooms vitrified tiles have been provided. In toilet/Balconies ceramic tiles and in the common area kota stone/marble have been provided. The Ops have taken a specific plea in the written reply that all those facilities as agreed between the parties were provided. His plea is fortified on the basis of documents executed by the parties i.e. sale deed (Ex. C-17) in Complaint No. 526 of 2014 wherein it has been mentioned as under;-
"The seller declared and confirmed that the above said apartment and land beneath it which is subject matter of this sale deed is free from all sorts of encumbrances, mortgage, hibbanama, Notification, disputes, litigations etc. and seller is having all the rights and legally entitled to transfer the same in favour of purchaser and said purchaser has seen all the authority letters and documents. He is satisfied with the provisions mentioned in the form and he can sell the respective units as per terms and conditions. Whereas the firm has given the right to the purchaser to inspect the spot, building, site plan, foundations, status and mode of construction of apartment and purchaser has personally inspected the same and verified the apartment and have seen the common area and he is fully satisfied with its construction, foundations regarding material, finishing, First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 32 fittings, cost and physical situation and also satisfied with the common area and accepted the present conditions:- (1) That the seller is selling the above mentioned apartments, signed the same and is conveying the same uncovered unpartitioned share which is land underneath the same and the above said Solitaire Divine Apartments, situated at Village Himmatgarh, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar fully mentioned above, with all rights and ownership of the same has been given to the purchaser alongwith rights of common interests, common area and amenities i.e. including Stairs, Fittings, common lights, Sewerage etc. Common passages, amenities and right to use the other things and alongwith all types of common amenities including all long time rights which are in the apartment. Although despite this fact it is accepted, written and got recorded between the parties all the rights except the long term rights mentioned above the further construction due to alteration in F.A.R. which is legal authority and development of open area, park, parking etc. (except which is allotted in this agreement) will be the absolutely ownership of the firm and it will be entitled to recover the expenditure incurred over the same and it can sell the same further which are mentioned above."
The complainants had also executed an indemnity-cum- undertaking Ex. Op-14 in Complaint No. 526 of 2014, wherein it has been observed as under;-
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 33
"That we have taken vacant physical possession of the flat as per the allotment letter to my complete satisfaction and after due inspection and verification of all aspects of the flat in respect of its condition, documents, title, status, size, built up area, measurement, dimensions, location, quality of construction and material used, specifications, services provided, etc. which I acknowledge to be completely in accordance and compliance with the terms of the allotment letter and our requirements. Accordingly we confirm that we have no claim or demands of any nature whatsoever, now or anytime in future, against the companies in respect of or in relation to the Floor including but not limited to the aspects inspected and verified by us as above."
Therefore, once the complainants have agreed that they have taken the physical possession of the flat to their complete satisfaction after due inspection and verification of all the aspects of the flat in respect of its condition, documents, title, status, size, built up area, measurement, dimensions, location, quality of construction and material used, specifications, services provided etc. then they are now estopped by their own act and conduct to raise those questions by filing this frivolous complaint.
12. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that there was some deficiency in the construction material or other services, if any, the complainants are required to lead their independent evidence. To corroborate that fact in Complaint No. 526 of 2014, he has written a letter Ex. C-8 with regard to some problems in the First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 34 flat. It is also signed by some other flat owners. Ex. C-9 is with regard to use of swimming pool. The letters Exs. C-12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 are in continuation of letter Ex. C-8. No doubt that the complainants could raise their voice with regard to deficiencies in the construction or other facilities but merely their letters itself will not be sufficient, they will have to lead some independent evidence to prove that really there is deficiency in the construction or other facilities. Otherwise, these averments as stated in the complaint have been rebutted by Ops by way of their evidence i.e. affidavit of Vikas Sharma and written reply has been filed by him in the form of affidavit. To support this preposition, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 1 (2016) CPJ 224 "Kalyan Apartments Owners Welfare Association versus Sandeep Developers". In that case, there were allegations of defective construction alongwith delay and execution of the sale deed. There was expert report showing that the construction is safe and building is not defective in any respect. It was observed that if there had been any deficiency in construction or flat marble broken, allottees would have raised the objection while taking possession of their units. Lifts and generator were operational. Garden was in good shape according to the report of the expert. No deficiency was proved. A reference has been made to another judgment 2015 (2) CPR 99 "M/s Sethi Housing (India) Pvt. Ltd. And 3 Ors. Versus "M/s Jml Motors Pvt. Ltd." wherein it was observed that all buyers gone to Civil Court under CPC nor the power to appoint a Local Commissioner for First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 35 carrying out a local investigation, which is available to a Civil Court under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been expressly conferred by the Statute upon the Consumer Forum. In the absence of such a power, it is difficult to sustain the order for appointing Advocate as a Court Commissioner to carry out a local investigation for the purpose of elucidation in the matter of any dispute to ascertain whether the property suffers from any defects in the construction or the construction is complete in all respects. The order was set- aside and it was ordered to State Commission to appoint the qualified Engineer/Architect to carry out investigation.
13. In this case, there is no report from any Engineer/Architect to show the defects in the construction as alleged in the complaint. There is order dated 20.5.2015 passed by the District Forum vide which the parties had agreed for joint inspection in the presence of President and Secretary of the Association of the residents and the Company representative Sh. Vikas Sharma to inspect the flat of the complainants with regard to the common facilities/problems raised by the complainants. The joint inspection was ordered to be conducted on 22.5.2015 and the report was required to be submitted on 26.5.2015. The report was submitted although none was present on behalf of the Ops, as is clear from the zimni order dated 26.5.2015 passed by the District Forum. However, this report is not signed by either party. Even it has come in the order dated 26.5.2015 passed by the District Forum that none was present on behalf of the Ops but it is not signed by the President/Secretary or any representative of the First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 36 complainants. At the most it may be visual inspection and on the basis of visual inspection after a gap of about 2 years, such a findings cannot be given; in view of the judgment referred by the counsel for the Ops that in case any deficiency is to be observed in the construction work then there must be a report from independent person specifically any Engineer or Architect, therefore, in the absence of any independent report from any Engineer/Architect, this inspection report cannot be considered to give findings with regard to any deficiency in the nature of the construction as alleged by the complainants. The counsel for the complainants was unable to rebut this plea and not rebutted the judgments referred above by the counsel for the Ops.
14. The counsel for the Ops further stated that the complainants are estopped by their act and conduct to file this frivolous complaint in view of their admission in the Sale Deed as well as in the undertaking Ex. Op-14. To support this plea, counsel for the ops has relied upon the judgment II (2014) CPJ 509 (NC) "Lakshmi Vatika Limited & Ors. Versus Ravi Rai Khurana & Ors"
wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed that the petitioners are barred by their undertaking. Undertaking given by the litigant, cannot be taken lightly. It is to be presumed that the undertaking given after pondering over its pros and cons. He has referred to another judgment reported in IV (2013) CPJ 215 (NC) "B.S. Walia versus DLF Universal Limited" wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed that the objection was voiced after about 3 years after signing the buyer's agreement. Similarly, in the First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 37 present case, the complaint was filed after a gap of sufficient time after getting the physical possession. In case there would have been deficiencies as alleged by the complainants in their complaints then they would have filed the consumer complaint immediately thereafter. He has referred to another judgment reported in II (2010) CPJ 479 "Rahul Kanwar versus Sukh Raltora Pvt. Ltd." wherein it was observed by the Delhi State Commission that purchaser cannot point out deficiency in work after taking possession. Claim, if any, deemed to be withdrawn. It is the duty of the appellant/complainant to inspect the house before taking the possession. Similar view was taken by Tamilnadu State Commission in the judgment reported in III (2010) CPJ 389 "V. Sridharan versus Sreyas". Counsel for the complainant was unable to rebut this plea and the judgments referred by the counsel for the Ops. He did not refer any contrary judgment to counter the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the Ops.
15. The District Forum while observing the latent deficiencies in the construction, has not properly discussed the averments in the complaint and evidence on the record. The basic onus was upon the complainants to prove deficiencies in the construction and in the absence of independent evidence on the record, the District Forum was not justified to give findings in favour of the complainants with regard to any latent deficiencies in the construction/amenities annexed to it. Therefore, to that extent, findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be set-aside and are hereby set-aside.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 38
16. It was further argued that the order passed by the District Forum to refund the amount received from the respective flat owners on account of maintenance till date alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. is illegal, null and void and is against the evidence on the record. The maintenance Clause has been referred in the allotment letter Ex. C-1 in Complaint No. 526 of 2014 as Clause No. 17, which reads as under:-
"17. FACILITY MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE
1. Operation, Running, Repair, Maintenance and Management of the parts of apartment, building, parts under common use, various facilities, common services landscaping, roads, parking areas, social club and security inside the Complex shall be the joint responsibility of all the Allottees buying flats under the said scheme of the Company. The Company shall render all such services either directly or through its nominated agency, after the due date of handing over possession of the flats. For such services, proportionate Monthly Maintenance Charges (MMC)/ Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) shall have to be paid to the Company or its nominated agency as decided by it, as and when demanded, which will include a reasonable profit, apart from the expenses towards the same. A separate agreement containing detailed terms and conditions shall be executed with all allottee/s.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 39
2. The Flat, its walls and partitions, sewers, drains, pipes and appurtenances thereto or belonging thereto, shall be kept good and tenantable and shall be repaired and maintained in a fit and proper condition and the structure safety of the premises shall be ensured without any damage from the date of taking possession of the Flat or the date of receiving deemed possession, as provided herein before by all the allottee's.
3. Nothing shall be permitted, done or suffer anything to be done in any manner, to any part of the building, the staircases, shafts, common passages, compound or any things/areas connected with or pertaining to the building which would violate the Bye-Laws of Municipal Corporation/any other statutory Authorities or any law for the time being in force or any rule or notification issued by the local or other authority.
4. All the requirements, requisitions, usage, demands and repairs as may be and as are required to be complied with by the Municipal Authority, Government or any other competent Authority in respect of the flat and the land on which the said Building is situated shall be complied with and paid in proportion to the super built up area of the respective Flats under the said scheme after the possession or deemed possession and the company shall be kept indemnified, secured and harmless against all costs, requisitions, demands and repairs from the date of First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 40 notice and in case of a consolidated demand, for the entire period against which the demand is raised."
17. As per Clause No. (xii) in para No. 5 of the complaint, it has been stated vide letter dated 2.3.2013, the Ops asked the complainants to make payments of last installment alongwith MMS & IFMS charges, which the complainants paid within the time but the possession was not delivered as promised. Therefore, that payment is required to be refunded. The District Forum in its order, observed that Ops had fixed maintenance charges @ Rs. 2800/- per month for 4 BHK flat, Rs. 2500/- per month for 3 BHK flat and Rs. 2,000/- per month for 2 BHK flat. However, despite getting that payment, Ops have failed to maintain common facilities like road, which required major repair, problem in power back up, street light, club, gym and CCTV cameras. Whereas the stand of Ops is that after payment of 1 year, the complainants stopped to make the maintenance payments. Therefore, problem, if any, in the maintenance is due to the non-payment of charges by the complainants. As provided in Clause 17 referred above, it is the joint responsibility of the allottees as well as Ops to maintain the complex. Certainly, the complainants are liable to pay maintenance charges as referred in the order passed by the District Forum, charges for 4 BHK flat has been Rs. 2800/- per month, for 3 BHK Rs. 2500/- per month and for 2 BHK Rs. 2000/- per month and after payment of maintenance charges after 1 year, they have not paid the maintenance charges. The District Forum has relied upon the joint inspection. In case the Ops on the fixed First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 41 date could not join the inspection, it does not mean that there is deficiency in maintenance of the complex. In case the complainants are alleging the deficiency in maintaining of the complex, they should lead independent evidence. Joint inspection as referred above is nothing because it is not signed by any of the party. Therefore, that cannot be taken as a report. Independent technical report from Engineer/Architect is required in view of the judgment 2015 (2) CPR 99 "M/s Sethi Housing (India) Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Versus "M/s Jml Motors Pvt. Ltd." (supra). But the complainants have not led any independent evidence of any Engineer/Architect that the maintenance services provided by the Ops are not in order. Mere averments of the complainants are not sufficient because those averments has been rebutted by way of affidavit by the representative of the Ops. Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence on the record, the order passed by the District Forum with regard to refund of the maintenance amount alongwith interest @ 9% is not justified, therefore, order of the District Forum to that extent is ordered to be set-aside.
18. With regard to the Completion Certificate, although at the time of passing the order, completion certificate was not taken by the Ops, however, in the appeal file, they have placed on the record, the completion certificate from Nagar Council, Zirakpur and it was allowed to the Ops in an application for additional evidence in the appeal and it was tendered before this Commission as Ex. Op-23. Some other certificates i.e. NOC from PSPCL, Fire Safety Certificate, NOC from Pollution Board etc. have also been First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 42 tendered on the record. Further with regard to Occupation Certificate, provision has been made in Section 14 of the PAPRA, 1995, which reads as under:-
"14. Occupation and completion certificate. - (1) It is the responsibility of the promoter,-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to 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.
(2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 43
According to Clause 14(1), in case of apartments, after the occupation, the allottee himself could apply for occupation certificate, therefore, it could not be considered as a deficiency. Specifically when on 10.7.2015, the said Certificate was issued by Municipal Council, Zirakpur, therefore, this direction in our view is unwanted and ordered to be set-aside.
19. In the case of Consumer Complaint No. 526 of 2016 'Balbir Singh and other versus The Managing Director or Head Incharge, Divine Associates and others', an order has been passed to refund a sum of Rs. 7,000/-, as parking was not made available to him despite taking the possession. It has been argued by the counsel for the Ops that no such relief was asked for in the relief clause of the complaint. However, when the complaint is dealt with only relief clause is not to be interpreted, the entire complaint is to be considered. Para No. 5 (x), reads as under:-
"Parking slot of the complainants remained partially under occupation of company office upto March, 2014 which put the complainants under unnecessary inconvenience and hardship. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- (@ Rs. 1,000/- p.m.) as rent for seven months be paid to the complainants."
Therefore, specific plea has been taken in the body of the complaint with regard to refund of Rs. 7,000/- for not providing parking for seven months as dead stock of Ops was lying in the parking space. In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated by the counsel for the Ops that no specific number was allotted and the appellant could park his vehicle at any parking space because First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 44 construction activity was in winding up mode and some swirling (waste) material was lying in the complex and the opposite parties had offered the complainants alternative space for parking. However, we have gone through the evidence led by the Ops. There is no letter on behalf of the Ops that his place is occupied due to construction activities, therefore, he should utilize another parking space. In case parking is to be given to the allottees then specific place has to be nominated. We do not agree with the plea taken by the counsel for the Ops that no specific parking space was allotted to the allottees, otherwise, it would be a mess in the entire complex unless specific parking space is allotted to individual allottee. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- allowed to complainants 'Balbir Singh & Krishana Devi' in Complaint No. 526 of 2014 was rightly allowed. We do not see any reason to set-aside that order.
20. In the appeals filed by the complainants, Appeal Nos. 811 to 825 of 2015, a specific plea has been taken that no amount with regard to late delivery of possession was given by the District Forum, therefore, it was argued by the counsel for the appellants/complainants in First Appeal No. 811 to 825 of 2015 that they be allowed the late delivery penalty charges from the Ops. It was argued by counsel for the Ops that offer of possession was given within the agreed period and in case delay has been caused by the complainants to get the possession then they are not liable to pay the later delivery possession charges. The following table will make it clear, the date of offer of possession, First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 45 execution of the sale deed in which there is recital to get the possession and the super area of the flat is as under:-
S. Appeal No. Name of Date of Sale Deed Date of Super No. Complainant offer of showing Actual Area possession taking of Posse-
possession ssion
1. 811 of 2015 Amit Lath 15.3.2013 2.8.2013 6.10.13 1357
2. 812 of 2015 Neelam Monga 21.10.2013 20.2.2014 27.10.13 1685
3. 813 of 2015 Veena Rani 2.3.2013 21.10.2013 6.11.13 1685
4. 814 of 2015 Ramesh Gupta 2.3.2013 2.8.2013 18.10.13 1685
5. 815 of 2015 Karan Singh 2.3.2013 2.8.2013 6.10.13 1357
Ranga
6. 816 of 2015 Balbir Singh 2.3.2013 24.7.2013 1.9.13 1894
7. 817 of 2015 Pardeep 6.12.2013 13.12.2013 1.4.14 1357
Sharma
8. 818 of 2015 Abhishek 2.3.2013 29.8.2013 5.10.13 1357
9. 819 of 2015 Sanjeev 2.3.2013 24.9.2013 20.12.13 1357
Sharma
10. 820 of 2015 Karamvir Singh 29.6.2013 16.9.2013 20.10.13 1894
11. 821 of 2015 Umesh Parsad 6.7.2013 8.8.2012 5.10.13 1357
12. 822 of 2015 Chitranjan 27.5.2013 24.7.2013 15.9.13 1894
Kumar
13. 823 of 2015 Pardeep Kaur 2.3.2013 16.8.2013 22.9.13 1357
14. 824 of 2015 Purnendu Kaur 19.8.2013 29.8.2013 18.10.13 1685
15. 825 of 2015 Amit Sabarwal 12.3.2013 27.5.2013 6.10.13 1685
Although in the complaint, it has been alleged by the complainants that the actual physical possession was delivered much after execution of the sale deed. No doubt that in some cases, their documents are showing handing over physical possession beyond the date mentioned in the sale deed. In the sale deed Ex. C-17 in Complaint No. 526 of 2017, there is Clause No. 3 in which it has been referred as under:-
"3) That the seller on the basis of this sale deed has handed over the peaceful possession of this residential apartment to the purchaser and now purchaser has become the absolute owner of the same so that he can use the same First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 46 and can sell, transfer, mortgage etc. this residential apartment."
It shows that actual possession has been taken. On the basis of this document, it cannot be said that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the complainants were not aware of offer of possession and they have got it mentioned in the sale deed that they have taken the physical possession, although they might have executed the documents of possession at a later date, therefore, at the most, the date of delivery of possession will be taken on the date of execution of the sale deed. In case possession certificate is prior to the execution of sale deed then date of occupation certificate will be taken. In case there is delay in delivery of possession, a reference can be made to the judgment 1(2017) CPJ 43 (NC) "Devikarani Rao versus EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. & Anr." wherein late or non-delivery of possession amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, for the delayed delivery of possession then penalty charges are required to be paid by the Ops as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. In the allotment letter Ex. C-1, Clause No. 13(6), it has been mentioned as under:-
"6. The Company as a result of such a contingency arising, reserves the right to alter or vary the terms and conditions of allotment or if, the circumstances, beyond the control of the Company, so warrant, the Company may suspend the scheme for such period as it may consider expedient and no compensation of any nature whatsoever First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 47 shall be entertained for the period of delay/suspension of scheme. In consequence of the Company abandoning the scheme, the 'Company's liability shall be limited to the refund of the amount paid without any interest or compensation whatsoever. However, the Company shall compensate the delay due to other reasons, apart from those mentioned above @ Rs. 4.00/- (Rupees Four Only) per square feet of super area per month after 31.3.2013 from the date of Provisional Allotment, for the period of delay."
21. How much amount each complainant will be entitled on account of late delivery of possession, can be tabulated from the last date for delivery to the actual date of delivery/execution of the sale deed.
Appeal Name of Date of Sale Deed Actual Supe Period of Total
No. Complainant offer of showing date of r delay Amount
possession taking of Poss- Area (in
possession ession Rupees)
811/ 2015 Amit Lath 15.3.2013 2.8.2013 6.10.13 1357 4 months 21712/-
812/2015 Neelam Monga 21.10.2013 20.2.2014 27.10.13 1685 7 months 47180/-
813/2015 Veena Rani 2.3.2013 21.10.2013 6.11.13 1685 7 months 47180/-
814/2015 Ramesh Gupta 2.3.2013 2.8.2013 18.10.13 1685 4 months 26960/-
815/2015 Karan Singh 2.3.2013 2.8.2013 6.10.13 1357 4 months 21712/-
Ranga
816/2015 Balbir Singh 2.3.2013 24.7.2013 1.9.13 1894 4 months 30304/-
817/2015 Pardeep 6.12.2013 13.12.2013 1.4.14 1357 9 months 46138/-
Sharma
818/2015 Abhishek 2.3.2013 29.8.2013 5.10.13 1357 5 months 27140/-
819/2015 Sanjeev 2.3.2013 24.9.2013 20.12.13 1357 6 months 32568/-
Sharma
820/2015 Karamvir Singh 29.6.2013 16.9.2013 20.10.13 1894 6 months 45456/-
821/2015 Umesh Parsad 6.7.2013 8.8.2012 5.10.13 1357 4 months 23069/-
822/2015 Chitranjan 27.5.2013 24.7.2013 15.9.13 1894 4 months 30304/-
Kumar
823/2015 Pardeep Kaur 2.3.2013 16.8.2013 22.9.13 1357 4-½ 24426/-
months
824/2015 Purnendu Kaur 19.8.2013 29.8.2013 18.10.13 1685 5 months 33700/-
825/2015 Amit Sabarwal 12.3.2013 27.5.2013 6.10.2013 1685 2 months 13480/-
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 48
It was argued by the counsel for the Ops that according to Sub- Clause 7, the right to take timely possession shall cease to exist for those, who have delayed payment of one or more installments. However, in the written reply, the Ops have not stated that there was delayed payment of more than two installments by any of the complainant, therefore, Ops cannot take the benefit of this clause. The District Forum has observed that the late delivery of possession was due to act of omission and commission on the part of complainants but no period has been given by the District Forum on which date offer of possession was given to the complainants, how it was sent/dispatched to the complainants and in what manner, there was delay on the part of the complainants to get the possession. We have already taken the date of delivery of possession as mentioned in the sale deed and not the actual taking of possession in view of the reasons stated above, therefore, total denial of penal charges on account of delay in delivery of possession to the complainants is not in order when Ops are taking penal interest on account of late installments, therefore, the complainants will be entitled to late delivery of possession charges from the Ops as referred above.
22. It is next argued by the counsel for the complainants that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum is inadequate. However, in view of the above findings, when we have observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops with regard to providing of basic amenities about the maintenance of the complex, the completion certificate could First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 49 be obtained by the allottees in case they had taken the possession, therefore, overall except late delivery of possession, there is no other deficiency in service on the part of Ops. In that eventuality the counsel for the Ops have stated that the amount of compensation allowed by the District Forum @ Rs. 50,000/- including compensation and litigation cost is on the higher side. Once late delivery penalty charges have been allowed to the complainants as agreed in the letter of allotment then no separate compensation amount can be awarded to the complainants. However, each complainant will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
23. Sequel to the above, the appeals filed by the Ops i.e. First Appeal Nos. 828 of 2015 and 830 to 843 of 2015 as well as appeals filed by complainants i.e. First Appeal Nos. 811 to 825 of 2015 are partly accepted and the order passed by the District Forum is modified that complainant will be entitled to the amount from Ops for late delivery of possession as under:-
(i) Appeal Name of Complaint No. Period of Amount of Late No. Complainant delay delivery charges 811/ 2015 Amit Lath & Complaint No. 4 months Rs. 21712/- Monika Lath 537/2014
812/2015 Neelam Monga Complaint No. 7 months Rs. 47180/- 533/2014 813/2015 Veena Rani Complaint No. 7 months Rs. 47180/- 682/2014 814/2015 Ramesh Gupta Complaint No. 4 months Rs. 26960/- 534/2014 815/2015 Karan Singh Complaint No. 4 months Rs. 21712/- Ranga 532/2014 816/2015 Balbir Singh Complaint No. 4 months Rs. 30304/- 526/2014 First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 50 817/2015 Pardeep Complaint No. 9 months Rs. 46138/- Sharma 527/2014 818/2015 Abhishek Complaint No. 5 months Rs. 27140/- Dwevedi 679/2014 819/2015 Sanjeev Complaint No. 6 months Rs. 32568/- Sharma 529/2014 820/2015 Karamvir Singh Complaint No. 6 months Rs. 45456/- 535/2014 821/2015 Umesh Parsad Complaint No. 4 months Rs. 23069/- 531/2014 822/2015 Chitranjan Complaint No. 4 months Rs. 30304/- Kumar 536/2014 823/2015 Pardeep Kaur Complaint No. 4-½ months Rs. 24426/- 528/2014 824/2015 Purnendu Bala Complaint No. 5 months Rs. 33700/- 680/2014 825/2015 Amit Sabarwal Complaint No. 2 months Rs. 13480/- 530/2014
ii) over and above these charges, appellants/complainants will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
24. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 828 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 30,304/-, Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) and Rs. 7,000/-(parking charges) alongwith interest be remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 51
25. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 830 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court and the remaining amount be paid by the appellants.
26. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 831 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 13,480/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
27. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 832 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 33,700/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 52 despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
28. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 833 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 23,069/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
29. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 834 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts be remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants, with interest accrued thereon, if any, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court and the remaining amount be paid by the appellants.
30. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 835 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts be remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants, with interest accrued thereon, if any, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 53 subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court and the remaining amount be paid by the appellants.
31. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 836 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 24,426/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
32. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 837 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 27,140/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
33. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 838 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 26,960/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 54 remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
34. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 839 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 30,304/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
35. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 840 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 32,568/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry, to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 55
36. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 841 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 21,712/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
37. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 842 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts be remitted by the registry to the respondents/complainants, with interest accrued thereon, if any, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court and the remaining amount be paid by the appellants.
38. The appellant No. 1 in F.A. No. 843 of 2015 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of these amounts, Rs. 21,712/- plus Rs. 10,000/-(litigation expenses) alongwith interest, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant and the remaining amount, with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the First Appeal No. 828 of 2015 56 despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
39. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
40. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER March 21, 2017.
as