State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ram Chand Lakhanpal S/O. Hira Ram vs M/S Dream City Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on 16 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/68/2025
RAM CHAND LAKHANPAL S/o. Hira Ram
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S DREAM CITY REALTORS PVT. LTD.
BUSINESS ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
RAM CHAND LAKHANPAL S/o. Hira Ram
DATED: 16/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint No. : 68 of 2025 Date of Institution : 07.07.2025 Date of Decision : 16.12.2025
1. Ram Chand Lakhanpal son of Sh. Hira Ram, aged about 76 years,
2. Kanta Devi wife of Sh. Ram Chand Lakhanpal, aged about 70 years,
3. Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Ram Chand Lakhanpal, aged about 48 years, All resident of Village: Dhabriana, PO: Loharara, Tehsil: Barsar, Hamirpur, Himachal Pardesh-174304 ....Complainants Versus
1. M/s Dreamcity Realtors Private Limited. Unit No. B-107, Business Complex, Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002 through its Managing Director.
2. Sh. Binder Pal Mittal, Director of M/s Dreamcity Realtors Private Limited, Unit No. B-107, Business Complex, Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002.
3. Sh. Parteek Mittal, Director of M/s Dreamcity Realtors Private Limited, Unit No. B-107, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Ist Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.
4. Sh. Nippun Kapoor, Director of M/s Dreamcity Realtors Private Limited. Unit No. B-107, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Ist Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.
5. Sh. Darshan Singh, Auhtorised signatory of M/s Dreamcity Realtors Private Limited, Unit No. B-107. Business Complex, Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002.
....Opposite Parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants.
Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate, for opposite parties No. 1 to 4.
Opposite party no.5 proceeded against exparte vide order dated
15.09.2025.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI
Facts narrated by the complainants:-
The Complainants, with the intention of earning their livelihood through self-employment, booked Unit No. FLE-07, admeasuring 625 sq. ft. (super area), situated on the 3rd Floor of the project titled "SUSHMA PRISTINE" located at Village Chhat, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, for a basic sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-. The Complainants paid a total sum of Rs.74,20,000/- strictly in accordance with the demands raised by the Opposite Parties, and all transactions and documentation, including the Memorandum of Understanding, Allotment Letter, and Agreement for Sale dated 25.04.2023, were executed at Chandigarh. The Opposite Parties expressly represented that the project had been duly approved by all competent statutory and regulatory authorities and assured delivery of possession on or before 25.04.2028. In addition, under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.04.2023, the Opposite Parties undertook to pay a committed assured return of Rs.112/- per sq. ft. per month, amounting to Rs.63,000/- per month post- TDS, from June 2023 till the issuance of Completion/Occupation Certificate or handing over of possession, and accordingly issued 19 post-dated cheques in favour of Complainant No.2. Out of the said cheques, only 15 were honoured, whereas the remaining four cheques bearing Nos. 446468, 446469, 446470, and 446471 were repeatedly dishonoured with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer," despite multiple presentations through the bank. The Complainants immediately intimated the Opposite Parties through emails dated 15.08.2024 and 31.08.2024 and also served a legal notice dated 19.09.2024, yet the Opposite Parties failed to respond or clear the outstanding dues. Despite repeated telephonic calls and personal visits by the Complainants, the Opposite Parties continued to evade their contractual obligations, and their persistent failure to honour the assured monthly commitment has caused serious financial hardship, mental agony, and harassment to the Complainants, who are senior citizens and had invested their life savings. Hence this complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking following reliefs:-
a) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.63,000/- per month (less TDS) as per the terms of the MoU dated 25.04.2023, along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
b) Direct the Opposite Parties to issue fresh cheques for all defaulted months up to the date of possession (25.04.2028) or application of Occupation Certificate, whichever is earlier.
c) Award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainants.
d) Award litigation expenses of Rs.75,000/-.
e) Pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Written version filed by opposite parties no.1 to 4:-
2. Opposite parties no.1 to 4 filed joint written version, wherein while admitting the factual matrix of the case regarding purchase of the unit in question by the complainants in the project in question;
payments made by them; execution of agreement and MOU, etc. took various objections interalia as under:-
(i) that the complainants being investors did not fall within the definition of consumer;
(ii) that this Commission is not vested with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint;
(iii) that in the face of provisions of RERA under which the project is registered this Commission is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint;
(iv) that the complainants have purchased the commercial unit, for which they are also being paid assured return, which gives character of commercial transaction which shows that they were never interested in the unit booked by them for earning their livelihood and as such being investors are barred from availing remedy under the Act, 2019;
(v) that since as per clause 7.1 of the agreement dated 25.04.2023, Annexure R-2, possession of the unit in question was to be delivered by 25.04.2028 as such this complaint being premature is liable to be dismissed;
(vi) that this complaint is barred by limitation;
(vii) that Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 25.4.2023 providing payment of Rs.112/-
per square foot per month on the carpet are of the unit was purely an independent commercial arrangement between the parties and is not a part of the agreement for sale dated 25.04.2023;
(viii) that an amount of Rs.10,01,000/- have already been paid to the complainants as assured returns;
(ix) that delay in completing the construction is attributed to force majeure circumstances i.e. COVID 19, yet, construction work is going on in full swing at the project site and possession of the unit will be delivered by the stipulated date;
(x) that the issue of assured returns/assured rentals is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court and as such no decision in this matter can be given by this Commission till final disposal of the said issues;
(xi) that an amount of Rs.2,21,150/- is still payable by the complainants, as evident from statement of account, Annexure R-7.
Opposite party no.5 proceeded against exparte:-
3. Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.5 as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.09.2025.
Rejoinder:-
4. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of the opposite parties no.1 to 4.
Evidence by the parties:-
5. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
Findings/observations of this Commission:-
Complainants are consumers:-
7. First, we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite parties no.1 to 4 to the effect that since the complainants have purchased commercial unit for which they earned committed amount i.e. for commercial gains, as such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Before proceeding ahead, it is apposite to reproduce Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the CPA 2019), as under:-
".....(7) "consumer" means any person who-- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose..."
8. It may be stated here that it is a matter of common knowledge and prevailing commercial practice that, in order to attract and persuade prospective purchasers to invest in residential or commercial units, builders and developers frequently float schemes offering committed charges, assured returns, assured rentals, lease guarantees, or pre-EMI/subvention benefits. Such incentives are consciously devised as marketing tools to lure buyers and enhance the marketability of the project. It is equally well understood that these schemes are generally extended to those buyers who are induced to pay a substantial portion, often more than 75% of the total sale consideration, within a short span of time, notwithstanding the fact that possession of the unit is scheduled to be offered only after a period of four to five years. By offering such return schemes, the builders are able to mobilize a large quantum of funds from the buyers at an early stage of the project, whereas amounts from other purchasers are received gradually over the construction period in installments. These schemes, therefore, are primarily structured to strengthen the cash flow of the builders/developers rather than to confer any commercial advantage upon the buyers. In such circumstances, if purchasers or complainants choose to deploy their hard-earned savings, including amounts withdrawn from their bank deposits, with the objective of securing better returns through committed charges instead of allowing the money to remain idle or earn lesser interest in banks, they cannot, on that ground alone, be branded as 'investors' or denied the status of 'consumers'. The mere receipt or promise of committed charges, assured returns, lease amounts, or similar benefits, being basically linked to the builder's marketing strategy and contractual assurances, does not ipso facto alter the consumer character of the transaction or deprive the allottee of the statutory protection available under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the mere purchase of a commercial unit, coupled with acceptance of such committed amount benefits till the date of offer of possession or otherwise, is not sufficient to exclude the complainants from the purview of 'consumer'. Our this view is supported by the observations made by the Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 23.01.2018 passed in First Appeals No. 1260 to 1262 of 2016 (M/s. Landmark Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Parnita Garewal, wherein while dealing with the same point of law, as to whether the complainants are consumers when they have purchased commercial space, it was held that they are Consumers as defined under the CPA Act. Even the SLP No. 9147 of 2018 (M/s. Landmark Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Prakash) filed by builder was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme vide order dated 16.04.2018 thereby upholding that the complainants who have purchased commercial space in the said IT Park fall within the definition and ambit of CP Act. Under these circumstances, it is held that irrespective of the fact that the complainants have purchased the commercial unit in the project of the opposite parties no.1 to 4 with the commitment of receipt of committed charges till the date of offer of possession, yet, that fact alone is not a sufficient ground to dismiss these complaints.
9. Furthermore, the complainants in their complaint have clearly stated that they have purchased the said unit for earning their livelihood by way of self employment. No evidence has been placed on record by the opposite parties no.1 to 4 to prove that the said unit was purchased by the complainants only to generate profits and that they are also running other businesses. In Sunil Kohli and anr. Vs. M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd., Civil Appeal nos.9004-9005/2018, decided on 01.10.2019, the complainants had been staying in Denmark and put their house on sale in that Country and wanted to reside in India. They booked a shop with M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd., with a view to open a store of lingerie by the brand name of "Change', yet, the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the complaint filed by them, holding that since the shop in question was booked for commercial purpose, as such, the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumer. In the appeal filed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the legal term of consumer, has categorically observed as under:-
"As laid down by this Court in Laxmi Engineering Works, the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act clarifies that "in certain situations, purchase of goods for "commercial purpose"
would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression 'consumer'. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a 'consumer'". This Court went on to observe that what is "Commercial Purpose" is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case.
To similar effect are the observations of this Court in Cheema Engineering Services wherein it was observed in para 6 thus:-
"6. In other words, the Explanation excludes from the ambit of commercial purpose in sub- clause (i) of Section 2(1)(d), any goods purchased by a consumer and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Such purchase of goods is not a commercial purpose. The question, therefore, is whether the respondent has been using the aforesaid machine for self-employment? The word "self-employment" is not defined. Therefore, it is a matter of evidence. Unless there is evidence and on consideration thereof it is concluded that the machine was used only for self- employment to earn his livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on regular basis the employee or workmen for trade in the manufacture and sale of bricks, it would be for self- employment. Manufacture and sale of bricks in a commercial way may also be to earn livelihood, but "merely earning livelihood in commercial business", does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose. Self-employment connotes altogether a different concept, namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself in working out or producing the goods for earning his livelihood. 'He' includes the members of his family. Whether the respondent is using the machine exclusively by himself and the members of his family for preparation, manufacture and sale of bricks or whether he employed any workmen and if so, how many, are matters of evidence. The burden is on the respondent to prove them. Therefore, the Tribunals were not right in concluding that the respondent is using the machine only for self-employment and that, therefore, it is not a commercial purpose. The orders of all the Tribunals stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to record the evidence of the parties and dispose of it in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order." The issue therefore is whether the evidence on record is suggestive or indicative of the fact that the premises in question were booked by the complainants with the intention of self-employment or self-use.
The affidavit of evidence as quoted above clearly points that the complainants wanted to dispose of the property in DENMARK and wanted to come down to Delhi to start a business. It is for this purpose that the premises in question were booked. The evidence also discloses that the Complainant no.1 was not employed any more in DENMARK and as a matter of fact, he was serving RED CROSS, a charitable organization. In the circumstances, it cannot be ruled that the case of the Complainants would not come within the definition of "consumer"
as defined under the provisions of the Act."
10. Not only as above, in the case of Tosoh India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Lilac Medicare Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Ram Kumar & 3 Ors., Revision Petition No. 2833 of 2018, decided on 06 Jan 2020, the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down following preposition of law, qua commercial activities:-
" (a) Only a person engaged in large scale commercial activities for the purpose of making profit is not a consumer;
(b) There should be a direct nexus between the large scale commercial activities in which a person is engaged and the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by him, before he can be excluded from the purview of the term 'consumer'. Therefore any goods purchased or the services hired or availed even by a person carrying on business activities on a large scale for the purpose of making profit will not take him out of the definition of the term 'consumer', if the transaction of purchases of goods or hiring or availing of services is not intended to generate profit through the large scale commercial activity undertaken by him and does not contribute to or form an essential part of his large scale commercial activities.
(c) What is crucial for the purpose of determining whether a person is a 'consumer' or not is the purpose for which the goods were purchased or the services were hired or availed and not the scale of his commercial activities.
(d) The explanation below Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act is clarificatory in nature
(e) A person purchasing goods or hiring or availing services for a consideration, for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment is a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
(f) It is not necessary that a person should be working alone in the commercial activity undertaken by him for earning his livelihood and his family members and / or a few employees can assist him in his commercial venture. Such assistance by his family members or by a few employees engaged by him does not convert his business or profession into a commercial activity on a large scale, for the purpose of making profit and therefore, does not exclude him from the purview of the term 'consumer'."
11. In Rohit Choudhary v. M/s Vipul Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 5858/2017] and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shantu Developers (2020) 2 SCC 265], it has been held that even purchasers of commercial property may qualify as "consumers" if the purchase is not for resale or large-scale commercial activity.
Under above circumstances, it is therefore held that since no evidence has been placed on record by the opposite parties no.1 to 4 to prove that the said unit has been purchased by the complainants only to generate profits and they are also running other businesses, as such, it is held that the complainants fall under the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (7) of the CPA 2019.
Pecuniary Jurisdiction:-
12. Now the question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint? It may be stated here that as per Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees fifty lacs, but does not exceed rupees two crores. In the present case also, since admittedly, as is evident from statement of account, Annexure R-7, amount paid by the complainants in respect of the unit in question is Rs. 74,19,999/- therefore this Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. As such, objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 4 in this regard, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
Territorial Jurisdiction:-
13. Now coming to the objection raised regarding territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that in the present case, following documents reveal that various cause of action accrued to the complainants, at Chandigarh:-
i. Allotment letter dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure C-1) was issued by opposite parties no.1 to 4 from the office located at B-107, First Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.
ii. Agreement for sale dated 25.04.2023 and also MOU (Annexures C-9 and C-10) have also been executed between the company and the complainants at B-107, First Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh iii. All the payments receipts, Annexure C-2 to C-8 colly, for the period starting from 12.04.2023 to 25.04.2023 have been issued by opposite parties no.1 to 4 from its Chandigarh Office i.e. B-107, First Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
In this view of the matter, it is held that since various cause of action arose to the complainants, in the manner stated above, within the territory of Chandigarh, they are well within their right to file this complaint with this Commission, at Chandigarh. Objection taken in this regard therefore stands rejected.
RERA not a bar for consumer complaints:-
14. An objection was also raised by opposite parties no.1 to 4 to the effect that in the face of registration of the project under the RERA, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred to entertain this complaint. It may be stated here that this objection does not merit acceptance, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and another, decided on 02.11.2020, wherein it was held that the provisions of RERA Act does not in any way bar the Consumer Commissions under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any consumer complaint. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
"....24. It is, therefore, required to be considered whether the remedy so provided under the RERA Act to an allottee is the only and exclusive modality to raise a grievance and whether the provisions of the RERA Act bar consideration of the grievance of an allottee by other fora.
25. Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, while in terms of Section 89, the provisions of the RERA Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force.
26. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an allottee described in category (B) stated in paragraph 22 hereinabove, would stand barred from invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, as regards the allottees who can be called "consumers" within the meaning of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the provisions of the CP Act; and b) whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the RERA Act.
*27. In Malay Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee , it was held by this Court:- "The proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court. *(See Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking *Corpn . On the strength of the law so declared, Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint..."
This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019, Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Abhishek Khanna & Others, decided on 11.01.2021.
Merits of the case:-
15. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that the Opposite Parties had executed the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.04.2023, Annexure C-9, wherein they unequivocally undertook to pay committed amount at the agreed rate i.e. Rs.112/- per square feet per month of the area of the unit in question till the issuance of Completion/Occupation Certificate. It is also an admitted position on record that, pursuant to the said commitment, the Opposite Parties had issued 19 post-dated cheques, out of which only 15 cheques were honoured, whereas the remaining four cheques were dishonoured with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer." What is most significant is that not even a single convincing justification has been offered by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, as to why the committed payments were abruptly stopped or why the cheques in question were dishonoured, despite repeated presentations, written communications, and issuance of a legal notice by the complainants. The Opposite Parties have neither pleaded nor proved any contractual, legal, or factual circumstances which could absolve them from their admitted liability under clause 1 of the MoU regarding payment of committed amount. Once the Opposite Parties voluntarily entered into a contractual arrangement and assured payment of committed charges till the issuance of Completion/Occupation Certificate, they were legally bound to honour the same in letter and spirit. The unilateral stoppage of payments, without any lawful justification and in complete disregard of the contractual obligations, clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
16. At the same time, it is held that a cause of action clearly arose to the complainants to file this complaint when the Opposite Parties ceased making the committed amount in respect of the unit in question. This dispute is independent of the question of possession of the unit, and therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be premature merely because possession is scheduled to be delivered in the year 2028. Similarly, while an objection could be taken either on the ground of prematurity or on limitation, both cannot be simultaneously urged. Consequently, the objection raised on the ground of limitation is also unsustainable. In view of these considerations, the objections raised by Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 in this regard are hereby rejected.
Relief/award:-
17. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs. Accordingly, Opposite Parties No.1 to 5, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
i. To pay to the complainants, the entire pending committed amount, as per clause 1 of the MOU dated 25.04.2023, Annexure C-9 starting from the date of default of the said committed amount onwards till 30.11.2025, alongwith interest @9% p.a. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated committed amount till 30.11.2025 aforesaid, shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default (expiry of 30 days) till this entire accumulated committed amount is paid to the complainants.
ii. To pay to the complainants, the committed amount, as per clause 1 of the MOU dated 25.04.2023, Annexure C-9 w.e.f. 01.12.2025, onwards (per month), by the 10th of the following month till the issuance of Completion and Occupation Certificates, failing which it shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective defaults of the said committed amount, till realization.
iii. to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice to the tune of Rs.75,000/- and also Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation, to the complainants within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts of compensation and litigation expenses shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
19. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith
20. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced 16.12.2025 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PADMA PANDEY MEMBER