State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lt. Col. Brijesh Kr. Singh vs Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 28 October, 2022
CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of institution: 08.12.2021
Date of hearing: 11.10.2022
Date of Decision: 28.10.2022
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 216/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
LT. COL. BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH (RETD.),
R/O D-2/38, 4TH FLOOR, JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI - 110058
(Through: Complainant in person)
...Complainant
VERSUS
SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
LGF - 10, VASANT SQUARE, PLOT - A,
SECTOR-B, POCKET- V, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070
MR. L. N GOEL
CHAIRMAN, SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
MR. VARUN AGGARWAL,
DIRECTOR, SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
MR. ARPIT GOEL,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
MR. ASHISH MITTAL,
SALES HEAD, SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
ALL AT SUNCITY BUSNIESS TOWER,
2ND FLOOR, GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR - 54,
GURUGRAM - 122002
(Through: Pravin Bahadur & Associates
for Opposite Party no. 1 & 5)
...Opposite Parties
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 17
CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Present: None for the parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant booked a 250 sq. ft. residential plot with the Opposite Party no. 1 in the housing project at Kukas, Jaipur. The Complainant paid Rs. 4,06,250/- on 20.02.2013 to the Opposite party no. 1 and the Opposite Party no. 1 issued receipt no. 0694 dated 26.02.2013. The Opposite Party no. 1 also issued an Application no. SUN/KUK/0456/T-1 dated 26.03.2013 to the Complainant confirming the booking of the said plot. The Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that actual physical possession of the said plot will be handed over within 2 years i.e. by 2015-2016. However, the possession of the said plot has not been handed over to the Complainant till date. The Complainant vide mail dated 02.09.2021 sought refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest but was of no avail. The Complainant sent various communications to the Opposite Parties to know about the progress of the allotment of plot and possession of the same but no satisfactory response was given by the Opposite Parties.
2. The Complainant submitted that due to the failure in handing over the possession of the said plot, he has to overstay in government accommodation and had to pay Rs. 70,648/- to the concerned department. More so, as a continued result of non-possession of the said plot till date, he was constrained to shift in rented premises, ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 for which he is paying Rs. 32,000/- per month. He further submitted that the plot was booked in the year 2013 i.e. 6 years prior to his retirement, so as to grant him maximum time to construct the home but due to non-handing of the said plot, the Complainant now has to spend additional amount in obtaining the same because of the increased plot and construction cost. The false promises caused huge losses to the Complainant and therefore, he prayed to be compensated for the same. The complainant sent legal notice dated 09.10.2021 to the Opposite Parties seeking the refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest and losses suffered by him but the Opposite Parties failed to reply the same.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the present complaint before this commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:
A. Declare the terms of Provisional Allotment Agreement, as unfair to the Complainant and null and void. B. Direct the Opposite Party to refund the Principal Amount of 4,06,250/- to the Complainant along with interest of 24% from 20.02.2013.
C. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant, 70,648/-, incurred by them (on government accommodation), as a direct result of delayed/ no timely possession.
D. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant their rental costs of 5,12,000/- (being 32,000/- per month; from 01.08.2020 till 01.12.2021 i.e., 16 months), incurred by them, as a direct result of delayed/ no timely possession.
ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022
E. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- on account of Mental Harassment, torture and agony suffered by him and his family; on the failure of the Opposite Party to hand over possession of residential plot and further handcuff the Complainant to purchase plot elsewhere;
leaving the wife of the Complainant to die without fulfilment of her final wish to have a permanent Home. F. Award the cost of the present Complaint to the tune of Rs.
50,000/- in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.
G. Any other and further appropriate orders and directions as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. The Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 submitted that the Complainant is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as no allotment of plot was made to him. He contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation according to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the booking amount was paid by the Complainant on 20.02.2013 and the present complaint was filed on 08.12.2021, which is beyond 2 years from the date on which cause of action arose.
5. The counsel for the Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 further contended that this commission does not have the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. He further ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 submitted in the written arguments that vide letter dated 24.08.2022 they had expressed its intent to refund the amount with interest @ 10% p.a. to the customers of the Kukas Project. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party no. 1 & 5. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record. Written arguments of the parties are on record.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the complainant and the counsel for Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 on 11.10.2022.
8. The fact that the Complainant had booked a 250 sq. ft. residential plot with the Opposite Party no. 1 in the housing project at Kukas, Jaipur is evident from the receipt no. 0694 issued by the Opposite Party no. 1 (Annexed at Pg. 14 of the Complaint). Payment to the extent of Rs. 4,06,250/- made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party no. 1 is not disputed by the Opposite Parties.
9. The first question for consideration before us is whether the present complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 submitted that booking amount was paid by the Complainant on 20.02.2013 and the present complaint was filed on 08.12.2021, which is beyond 2 years from the date on which cause of action arose. It is imperative to refer to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides as under:
69. Limitation period.--
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022
(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
10. Perusing the above statutory provision of law, it is clear that the complaint shall be filed before the State Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It is clear from the record that till date neither allotment of the said plot nor possession of the said plot has been delivered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party no. 1.
11. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts."
12. Relying on the above settled law, it is clear that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong constitutes a recurrent cause of action in favor of the buyer and therefore, till the time possession is not delivered to the Complainant, he is within right to ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 file the present complaint before this commission. Consequently, the present complaint is not barred by limitation as per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
13. The second question for consideration before us is whether this commission has the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. To comment on this issue, it is appropriate to refer to the Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides as under:
"47. Jurisdiction of State Commission. -
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;
(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit:
Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench.
(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it:
Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference.
(4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain."
14. A perusal of the Section 47(1)(a)(ii) reflects that this commission can entertain complaints against unfair contracts where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 crore rupees. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the Complainant has filed the present complaint against Opposite Parties alleging unfair contract, unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. It is evident from the receipt issued by the Opposite Party no. 1 that the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 4,06,250/- for the said plot, which is less than ten crore rupees. In view of the aforesaid, this commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.
15. More so, Section 47(4)(d) reflects that the complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction the complainant resides or personally works for gain. It is clear from the record that the Complainant in the present complaint resides at D-2/38, 4th Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058, which falls within the jurisdiction of this commission. Therefore, this commission is fully empowered to adjudicate the present complaint.
16. The third question for consideration before us is whether the Complainant falls in the category of consumer defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as no allotment was made in favour of the Complainant, no contract was entered between them and therefore, no contractual relationship exists between them. The law on the aforesaid issue is no more res integra and was already decided in the case of Vibhor Vaibhav Infrahome Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Azam Ali & Ors. in First Appeal no. 344/2016 decided on 20.07.2020, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held as under:
"13. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and have examined the record. Clearly, there is no basis ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 for cancellation of the booking of the complainant, as the complainant pursued the loan from OP no. 4 and later on with DHFL. Clearly, there is no substance in the argument of the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer of the appellant, because there is no allotment letter and no builder buyer agreement. It was the responsibility of the appellant to have issued the allotment letter after booking was made by the complainant, however, the same was not issued by the OPs. As there was no allotment letter issued and the money paid only remains as booking amount, the complainants are entitled to refund of the same."
17. Relying on the above settled law, we hold there is no merit in the contention of the Opposite Party no. 1 & 5 that the Complainant is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act because no allotment of plot was made in his favour. Consequently, since the allotment letter was not issued by the builder even after taking money from the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid by him.
18. The fourth question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in providing its services to the Complainant or not. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the Opposite Party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation.
19. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is noted that though the Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party no. 1 assured him to hand over the possession of the said plot within two years i.e. by 2015-2016, however, we fail to find any document/provision ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 which shows us that the possession of the said plot was to be handed over within two years from the date of booking.
20. It is appropriate to refer to the First Appeal no. 348/2016 titled as "Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Shobha Arora and Ors." decided on 10.05.2019, wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC has held as under:
"......under Section 46 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the following provision is there:
46.Time for performance of promise, where no application is to be made and no time is specified -
Where, by the contract, a promisor is to perform his promise without application by the promisee, and no time for performance is specified, the engagement must be performed within a reasonable time.
Explanation - The question "what is a reasonable time"
is, in each particular case, a question of fact".
19. from the above provision it is clear that if there is no time limit for the performance of a particular promise given by one party, it is to be performed within a reasonable time. In most of the builder buyer agreements, the period ranges from 24 to 48 months and the most common agreement seems to be for 36 months plus grace period of six months for completion of construction and delivery of possession. If the possession is delivered beyond 42 months or beyond 48 months, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party shall stand proved."
21. A perusal of the above settled law reflects that if the possession is delivered beyond 42 months or beyond 48 months, the deficiency in service on the part of the builder shall stand proved. However, in the present case, it is clear that the Opposite Parties failed to handover the possession of the plot in question even after the passing of more than nine years from the date of booking. It is ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 further clear from the letter dated 24.08.2022 (Exhibit Op-1) issued by the Opposite Party no. 1 to the Complainant that the residential project in question was dropped by the builder. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties stand proved.
22. Now the last question for consideration before us is as to how the complainant is to be compensated for the suffering caused to him at the hands of the Opposite Parties for deficiency of service and indulging in the unfair trade practice. The complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC passed in the case of Nirmal Aggarwal Vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 25.04.2016, wherein the commission had refunded the principal amount with interest @ 12% p.a. and also granted compensation of eight lacs to the consumer after examining the loss and harassment suffered by them.
23. The provisions of the Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the commission to redress any injustice done to a consumer. The commission is entitled to award compensation for the injustice suffered by them. At this juncture, it is imperative to refer to the settled position of law in this regard. In Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh reported at AIR 2004 SC 2141, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard and fast rule can be laid down, however a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made and there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.
9. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best of illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. therefore the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. Further if the construction is not of good quality or not complete, the compensation would be the cost of putting it in good shape or completing it along with some compensation for harassment. Similarly, if at the time of giving possession a higher price or other amounts is collected unjustifiably and without there being any provision for the same the direction would be to refund it with a reasonable rate of interest. If possession is refused or not given because the consumer has refused to pay the ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 amount, then on the finding that the demand was unjustified the consumer can be compensated for harassment and a direction to deliver possession can be given. If a party who has paid the amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position to ascertain whether he has paid the amount and that party is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he had paid the amount there would be deficiency of service for which compensation for harassment must be awarded depending on the extent of harassment. Similarly, if after delivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are not executed without any justifiable reasons, the compensation would depend on the amount of harassment suffered. We clarify that the above are mere example. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer."
24. In view of the present facts and circumstances, it is clear that the amount deposited by the complainant in the present matter has been utilized by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit and on the other hand, the complainant was not provided anything in return. The circumstances clearly show that the Opposite Parties made false representation of facts about the project in question at Kukas, Jaipur. The act and conduct of the Opposite Party is a clear case of misrepresentation and cheating against the consumers, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant.
25. It can hardly be disputed that there has been substantial appreciation in the value of residential plots between 2013 and 2021, when this complaint was filed. It is also the case of the complainant that there has been substantial appreciation in the cost of construction of houses in last 10 years. We find that even if the normal inflation rate is applied, the increase in the cost of ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022 construction cannot be less than 50-60% in last 6 years. Therefore, the complainant, in our view, is entitled to the said increase in cost of the residential plots and cost of construction. In addition to that the complainant is also entitled to the compensation for the rent paid, harassment and mental agony suffered by him and his family on account of the betrayal by the Opposite Parties in shattering their hope of getting the plot by waiting for all this period. In these circumstances, the complainant deserves suitable compensation.
26. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the principles discussed above, we direct the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant i.e., Rs. 04,06,250/- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party no. 1 till 28.10.2022 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Parties pays the entire amount on or before 28.12.2022;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Parties fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 28.12.2022, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 15% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party no. 1 till the actual realization of the amount.
ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 17 CC/216/2021 LT. COL. BRIJESH KR. VS. SUNCITY PROJECTS DOD: 28.10.2022
27. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Parties is directed to pay a sum of A. Rs. 3,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
28. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
29. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
30. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pronounced On:
28.10.2022 ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 17