State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Swatantra Lamba & Anr. vs Vatika Ltd on 17 September, 2024
CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 17.02.2022
Date of Hearing: 04.07.2024
Date of Decision: 17.09.2024
COMPLAINT CASE NO. - 22/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA,
S/O MR. MELA RAM LAMBA,
2. MRS. NEETU JOTI LAMBA,
W/O MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA,
BOTH RESIDING AT:
GREVILEA-301, LANGHAM COURT,
TAARIFA ROAD, PARKLANDS,
NAIROBI, KENYA.
(Through: Ms. Merlin Mathew, Advocate)
...Complainants
VERSUS
VATIKA LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
FLAT NO. 621 A, 6TH FLOOR,
DEVIKA TOWERS, 6 NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI- 110019.
ALSO AT:
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
UNIT NO. A-002, INXT CITY CENTRE,
GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK A,
SECTOR 83, VATIKA INDIA NEXT,
GURUGRAM - 122012.
(Through: Mr. Himanshu Chugh, Advocate)
...Opposite Party
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 18
CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Ms. Merlin Mathew, counsel for complainant appeared
on VC.
Mr. Himanshu Chugh (Enrl. No. D/7010/2020, counsel
for OP.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGEMENT
1. The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a Pass an order to deliver the vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the Unit Bearing " Plot No. 20/ 240/ Duplex / ST. 82 D1 -10/ Signature 2 Villa" also referred to as "Unit No. 20, S - 5.4, Signature Villa 2, Vatika India Next, Gurgaon.
2. Pass an order to pay to the Complainants the interest for the total period of delay in delivery of possession of the said Unit @ 18% per annum till the date of handing over of possession on the sum of Rs.63,22,877/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Only) paid till date.
3. Award the cost of present proceedings in favour of the ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 Complainants and against the Opposite Party; and
4. Pass any other orders) in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants applied for the allotment of a unit in the project "Bellevue Residences" of the Opposite Party, located in Gurgaon, Haryana. Subsequently, the Opposite Party, vide allotment letter dated 06.10.2009, allotted a villa with reference no. 60/240/duplex/BR to the Complainants in the aforementioned project. Accordingly, a Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 21.12.2009 was executed between the Opposite Party and the Complainants. As per Clause 11.1 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party was required to complete the construction of the said villa within three years from the date of execution of the agreement. However, the Opposite Party has failed to hand over possession of the said villa to date. Moreover, the Complainants made several communications regarding the status of the villa's construction, but no satisfactory response was provided by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainants visited the project site and were shocked to see that the construction was significantly behind schedule.
3. Further, owing to certain issues on the part of the Opposite Party, a fresh allotment letter dated 23.02.2012 was issued, reallotting another villa bearing no. 20/240/duplex/st.82d1-10/signature 2 villa, along with a letter dated 29.09.2012 stating that there would be no preferential location charges with respect to the unit allotted to the Complainants. Furthermore, in December 2016, the ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 Opposite Party offered to buy back the said villa from the Complainants. Believing that they would receive a full refund with interest, the Complainants completed all formalities and returned the original documents related to the project. Despite this, the Opposite Party did not refund the amount paid by the Complainants. The Complainants made several written communications regarding the refund, but to no avail. The Complainants also discovered that the Opposite Party sold the said villa to them without having the requisite title to the land on which the villa was to be constructed. Additionally, in 2019, the Opposite Party arbitrarily and without any communication with the Complainants, revised the built-up area from 2,659 sq. ft to 3,045 sq. ft, which resulted in the total basic price of the villa increasing from Rs. 1,07,49,991.33/- to Rs. 1,30,25,990.15/-, an increase of Rs. 22,75,998.82/-.
4. Thereafter, in January 2020, the Opposite Party again misrepresented to the Complainants that all issues concerning the property in question had been resolved and demanded a sum of Rs. 24,95,706/-. The Complainants were left with no option but to accept the Opposite Party's demand under the threat of cancellation of the villa's allotment. The Complainants have paid a total amount of Rs. 63,22,877/- towards the said villa, which is more than 50% of the unit's price, considering the stage of construction. However, the Complainants were again shocked to receive a notice of termination dated 13.07.2021 on the grounds of non-payment, along with an exorbitant demand of Rs. 78,79,616/-, failing which the Opposite Party threatened to terminate the Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 21.12.2009. Furthermore, no proper explanation ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 has been given to the Complainants regarding this demand to date, as the construction of the said villa has been at a standstill for several years. Thus, left with no other option, the Complainants also sent a legal notice dated 16.09.2021 to the Opposite Party, requesting possession of the said villa or, alternatively, a refund of the amount along with interest, but this too was to no avail.
5. The Opposite Party, along with its written statement, filed an application for condonation of delay and relied upon the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition bearing W.P. (Civ) No. 3 of 2020. The submission of the Opposite Party has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, the delay on the part of the Opposite Party is deemed justifiable. Consequently, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party is taken on record.
6. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the Complainants invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of this commission is barred as there is an arbitration clause in the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 21.12.2009.
7. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the delay, if any, was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Party and the reproduced below:
a. The Opposite Party was forced to change its building plan, project drawings, green areas, and the layout of ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 connecting roads due to the construction, laying, and/or re-routing of the Chainsa-Gurgaon-Jhajjar- Hissar gas pipeline by the Gas Authority of India Ltd.
b. Non-acquisition of land by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the laying of sector roads measuring 75 meters and 60 meters.
c. Labour issues, disruptions, and delays in the supply of stone aggregates and sand due to court orders, unusually heavy rainfall, delays in the supply of cement and steel, and the declaration of Gurgaon as a notified area for the purpose of groundwater. d. Delay in the removal or rerouting of a defunct 66kV high-tension line on the licensee's land, despite the deposition of charges/fees with HCBPNL, Haryana. e. Total and partial bans on construction due to directives issued by the National Green Tribunal at various times since 2015.
f. The National Green Tribunal/Environment Pollution Control Authority issued directives to counter the deterioration in air quality.
g. There were several additional partial restrictions, etc.
8. He also submitted the Complainants defaulted in making payment towards the said villa. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
9. Both parties filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024
10. Written Arguments of both the parties on record.
11. We have heard the counsel appeared on behalf of both the parties and peruse the material available on record.
12. The fact that the Complainants booked the said villa is evident from the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 21.12.2009 (Annexed at 16 of the present Complaint). The Complainants has made payment to the extent of Rs. 63,22,877/- to the Opposite Party is also evident from the account statement dated 19.05.202 (Annexed at page 132 of the present complaint).
13. The first question for consideration is whether Complainants fall in the category of 'consumer' under the consumer protection act, 2019?
14. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainants are not Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as they invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited reported in I (2017) CPJ 17(NC) wherein it is held as under:
"6. .......A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose."
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024
15. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-1122/2018 titled Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainant have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainant are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
16. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission, it clear that the purchase of more than one house or plot by the buyer cannot be termed as commercial purpose. In a present case, separate unit has been purchased by the buyer for the individual use of his family members, therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the Opposite Part that the Complainants are not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
17. Further, it is for the Opposite Party to prove that said villa purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainants. In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainants purchased the said villa for commercial purpose but fail to provide any material which shows us that the Complainants are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with view to make profit by ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 sale of such villa. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative.
18. The next question for consideration for us is whether the existence of arbitration clause in the agreement barred the jurisdiction of this commission?
19. The next preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party is that since there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, the parties should be referred to arbitration and this commission is barred from exercising its jurisdiction. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Emaar MGF Land Limited vs. Aftab Singh reported at I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC), wherein the Apex court has held as under:-
"55. We may, however, hasten to add that in the event a person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes being proceeded in arbitration. It is only the case where specific/special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to the arbitration."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has put to rest the controversy relating to the existence of arbitration clauses in the allotment letter/apartment buyer agreement etc. as is evident from the relevant paragraph of Emaar MGF Land Limited (supra). In the present case also, the Complainants have opted for the special remedies provided under ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 the Consumer protection Act, 2019 therefore, this commission can refuse to relegate the present case to the arbitration. Hence, this commission is authorized to adjudicate the case and the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does not affect the jurisdiction of this commission.
21. The Opposite Party further contented that the delay in handing over the possession of said villa was due to force majeure circumstances, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties as per clause 12.1 of the said agreement.
22. To deal this issue, we deem it appropriate to Consumer Case no. 1624 of 2018 tilted as Sachin Goel & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited decided on 13.07.2022, wherein similar case Hon'ble NCDRC held:
"12.Admitted facts of the case are that complainants were to get possession of the apartment within 48 months with 6 months grace period. It is submitted that extraction of ground water was banned in Gurgaon by Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore, construction was delayed. This cannot be a ground for Force Majeure because the opposite party could have used tankers and other sources to get water for the construction purpose and, therefore, this plea of Force Majeure is not a valid plea.
13. As regards ban on the mining of sand in Haryana and Rajasthan is concerned, it is not such an act which was beyond the control of the opposite party or would have made it impossible for the opposite party to complete the construction because dust could have been obtained from other sources. It is also submitted that delay had occurred ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 due to ban on the use of dust in 2015-2016 by the National Green Tribunal. It is expected form the opposite party that while making the promise regarding the date of possession, it should assess the anticipated date of possession after taking construction or the likely impediment in the construction. The opposite party certainly would have considered all these factors and that is why it gave time of 6 months of Force Majeure. It is also clear that no specific period during which the use of dust etc was banned by the National Green Tribunal has been mentioned by the opposite party. It is apparent that promised date of possession was 02.04.2017 and the present complaint was filed in the year 2018 and continued till 2022 and till date, there is no evidence that construction had been completed and the occupancy certificate has been obtained. Therefore, the ground that they could not complete the construction due to these reasons are meritless and baseless and has been taken with the intention to gain some advantage. It is a proved fact that opposite party had failed to give offer of possession of the subject apartment till date i.e. even after the expiry of five years."
23. We also deem it appropriate to refer Consumer Case No. 235 Of 2018 titled Narinder Sachdeva & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited decided on 06.01.2022, wherein NCDRC held:
14. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that the Clause specifies that the delivery of possession is subject to force majeure conditions and that there were several reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the Opposite Party such as interim orders of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby ground ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 water extraction was banned in Gurgaon; orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), whereby mining of sand in Haryana and Rajasthan was banned; reservation agitation in Haryana; orders of NGT to stop construction to prevent emission of dust in the month of April, 2015 and again in November, 2016, demonetization etc.
15. All the aforenoted reasons do not fall within the ambit of reasons beyond their control as it can be seen from the record that the Flat Buyer's Agreement was entered into way back in July, 2013 and the orders of NGT to prevent emission of dust in April, 2015 and in November, 2016 cannot be construed to be any substantial reason and definitely not a force majeure condition. Even demonetization and reservation agitation cannot be construed as force majeure. With respect to other reasons there is no documentary evidence on record that they have led to the delay in the delivery of possession."
24. Above dicta reflect that the bans on groundwater extraction, sand mining, and the orders of the NGT, do not fall within the scope of circumstances beyond their control.
25. Further, The Opposite Party submitted that its building plan, project drawings, green areas, and the laying down of connecting roads were delayed due to the construction, laying down, and/or re- routing of the Chainsa-Gurgaon-Jhajjar-Hissar gas pipeline by the Gas Authority of India Ltd., and the non-acquisition of land by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the laying down of 75- meter and 60-meter sector roads. However, the Opposite Party failed to provide any evidence regarding these claims. Moreover, even if it is assumed that such issues did occur, the Opposite Party did not provide any specific dates or details on how much time was required to resolve these issues. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Opposite Party is attempting to use the force majeure clause to cover up its delays, yet it has not provided any evidence ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 to support this defense. Additionally, the Opposite Party has also failed to demonstrate that it took any concrete steps to complete the construction on time, especially given that the agreement was executed in 2009 and time to complete the construction ended way back in year 2012 and the construction still remains incomplete. As a result, there is a lack of concrete documentary evidence to support the claim that these reasons have genuinely caused delays in delivering possession. Therefore, it can be concluded that the contentions made by the Opposite Party in relation to force majeure hold no substantive basis
26. We are of the considered view that neither any new legislation was enacted nor any existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping, suspending or delaying the construction of the said project. It is the sole responsibility of the Opposite Party to complete the construction of the said project within time. The Complainants cannot be tormented due to the faults of the Opposite Party. Consequently, the contention of the Opposite Party is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
27. Having discussed the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party, the next issue which arises is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainant. 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:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 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."
28. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to "Clause 11.1" of the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 21.12.2009, entered into by both contesting parties. It reflects that the Opposite Party was to complete the construction of the said villa within 3 years from the date of said agreement. However, the opposite Party miserably ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 failed to complete the construction of the said villa within prescribed.
29. Further, perusal of record it is noted that the in the month December 2016, the Opposite Party offered to buy back the said villa from the Complainants and agreed to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants along with interest, which is also evident from the email dated 07.09.2017 (Annexed at pg. 79) sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant as there was delay in completing the construction of the said villa. However, despite several reminder the Opposite Party failed to refund the same.
30. Furthermore, the fact that the Complainants booked the villa in 2009 with the expectation of receiving it by 2013, as assured by the opposite party, cannot be denied. However, the construction of the said villa was proceeding at a very slow pace. Consequently, when in 2020, the Opposite Party approached the Complainants stating that all issues regarding the property had been resolved and urged him to take possession of the property, it became evident that the Complainants were primarily interested in the villa as the Complainants were in a position where they did had any choice but to accept the offer as they have invested their hard earned money in the said project and there was always the threat of cancellation looming over him. Accordingly, the Complainants also paid towards the demand of Rs. 24,95,706/- to the Opposite Party on 10.01.2020. However, the Opposite Party without any proper explanation again sent demand of Rs.78,79,615/- forcing them to pay aforementioned exorbitant amount within 7 days. The Opposite Party also sent the said demand letter to Indian address despite knowing the fact the complainants were residing at Kenya ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024 not in India and all their conversation was happened through emails only. Therefore, the Opposite Party failed to show us that there was any default in payment on the part of the Complainants.
31. Additionally, it is clear that the Opposite Party had increased the built-up area of the said villa from 2659 sq. ft. to 3045 sq. ft. resulting in increasing in total basic sale price from Rs.1,07,49,991.03/- to Rs. 1,30,25,990.15/-. It is evident from the record that the Complainants accepts the said offer and also made a payment of Rs. Rs. 24,95,706/-. Therefore, the Complainants are liable to clear outstanding dues as per revised payment plan only.
32. Relying on the above settled law, we hold that the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainants with respect to complete the construction of the said villa and had kept the hard-earned money of the Complainants.
33. Now the only question remains that how much Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for delay in handing over the possession of the said villa. We deem it appropriate to refer Santosh S. Mayekar and ors vs. Rupji Construction and another as reported in IV [2019] CPJ 178 (NC), wherein, Hon'ble NCDRC observed in para 10 as under:
"Since the respondent has failed to justify the delay in delivery of possession of the allotted flats to the complainants/appellants, it must pay adequate compensation to them for the said delay. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to pay all inclusive compensation, in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. to the complaints/appellants till the date on which the possession was actually delivered.
ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024
The compensation shall be paid w.e.£. the committed date of delivery of possession, on the amount which had been paid by that date. On the balance amount paid by the complainants/appellants to the respondent, the compensation in the form of simple interest 8% p.a. shall be paid w.e.f. the date of each payment till the date on whichthe possession was delivered. The possession is stated to have been delivered in October 2017."
34. The Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of Anil Raj and ors versus Unitech Ltd. and ors. in CC-346/2013 decided on 02.05.2016 is pleased to observe as under:
"The word compensation is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend the compensation for physical mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, the commission/forum must determine the extent of sufferance by the consumer due to action or inaction on the part of the OPs".
35. It is clear that the term "compensation" has a broad meaning, which includes various types of losses, such as actual or anticipated losses, physical or mental suffering, emotional distress, insult, injury, or any other form of harm. Therefore, to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, the commission or forum responsible must assess the extent of the consumer's suffering caused by the actions or lack of action from the Opposite Party.
36. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Complainants to pay remaining outstanding amount to the Opposite Party within two months from the date of present judgment as per revised payment plan. Further, the Opposite party is directed to hand over the vacant, physical and peaceful possession (Complete in all respect) of the said villa within 2 months from the date of this judgment i.e., on or before 17.11.2024.
ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 18 CC. NO.22/2022 MR. SWATANTRA LAMBA AND ANR. VS. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.:17.09.2024
37. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party are directed to:
A. Pay to the Complainant a compensation for the delayed period in the form of simple interest at the rate of 6% on Rs.63,22,877/- (paid by the Complainants) for the period from the date of possession of the villa was due to be delivered till the handing over the possession of the said villa.
B. Rs. 3,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and C. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
38. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
39. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
40. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On: 17.09.2024 LR-ZA ALLOWED PAGE 18 OF 18