State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harpreet Singh vs M/S Bajwa Land Developers And Promoters ... on 18 January, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017
Date of institution : 23.08.2017
Date of decision : 18.01.2018
Harpreet Singh S/o Mr. Jaspal Singh, R/o Flat No.2099, Ashiana
Enclave, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bajwa Land Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Regd.
Office Sunny Enclave, Desumajra, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab,
through its Managing Director.
2. Sh. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, M/s Bajwa Land Developers
and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Sunny Enclave,
Desumajra, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab.
....Opposite Parties
2) Consumer Complaint No.731 of 2017
Date of institution : 23.08.2017
Date of decision : 18.01.2018
Ms. Manjit Kaur W/o Mr. Jaspal Singh, R/o Flat No.2099, Ashiana
Enclave, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bajwa Land Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Regd.
Office Sunny Enclave, Desumajra, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab,
through its Managing Director.
2. Sh. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, M/s Bajwa Land Developers
and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Sunny Enclave,
Desumajra, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab.
....Opposite Parties
3) Consumer Complaint No.760 of 2017
Date of institution : 04.09.2017
Date of decision : 18.01.2018
Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 2
Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh, Resident of Village Adampur,
Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, through its Managing Director,
Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Office at Sunny Enclave, Desumajra,
Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali.
2. Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa S/o Sh. Bishan Singh, Managing
Director of M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, Office at Sunny
Enclave, Desumajra, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali.
....Opposite Parties
4) Consumer Complaint No.853 of 2017
Date of institution : 29.09.2017
Date of decision : 18.01.2018
Vikas Bansal S/o Sh. S.K. Bansal, R/o House No.140/3A, Mohali.
....Complainant
Versus
M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd., Registered Office Sunny Enclave, Desu
Majra, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), through its
Managing Director, namely Jarnail Singh Bajwa.
....Opposite Party
5) Consumer Complaint No.854 of 2017
Date of institution : 29.09.2017
Date of decision : 18.01.2018
Sadhu Singh S/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh, R/o House No.382, First Floor,
Phase-4, Mohali, now residing at Flat No.A-204, NHK CGHS Ltd. GH-
51, IMT, Sector-1, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon, HR-122050.
....Complainant
Versus
M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd., Registered Office Sunny Enclave, Desu
Majra, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), through its
Managing Director, namely Jarnail Singh Bajwa.
....Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 3
Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
Present(Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017):-
For the complainant : Sh. Rajinder Singh, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
This order will dispose of above mentioned five (5) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), as the facts and the questions of law involved in all these complaints are the same and all the complaints have been filed against the same opposite parties/party by the complainants. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017.
Facts of Complaint (Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017) The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, seeking following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to deliver possession of the dwelling unit, in question;
OR in the Alternative:
to refund the amount of ₹5,06,250/-, along with interest at the rate of 10% till realization;
ii) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant;Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 4
iii) to pay ₹20,000/- towards litigation expenses; and
iv) it is also prayed that any other relief or direction, as may be deemed fit and proper, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, be also awarded/issued.
Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite parties are running the business under the name and style of "M/s Bajwa Land Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 14.01.2013, by which they agreed to sell a furnished flat bearing No.501, having 730 sq.ft. area, 5th Floor, Narwana Towers in their project known as "E-27, Sunny Urban Greens", for a total consideration of ₹20,25,000/-. The complainant paid a total sum of ₹5,06,250/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the said flat. As per Clause-2 of the agreement, the opposite parties agreed to provide basic, essential and necessary amenities in the said residential premises. As per Clause-10 of the agreement, the physical possession of the flat was to be delivered after two years from the date of agreement dated 14.01.2013. The complainant was surprised to receive letter dated 09.11.2015 from the opposite parties, vide which it was informed by them that the project "Sunny Urban Greens" has been transposed and rechristened as "Sunny Park Way" and that M/s Park Ways Home joined hands with M/s Bajwa Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to develop the said project, with improved proficiencies. The complainant was asked to deposit original agreement dated 14.01.2013 and payment receipts with them. The cost of the flat was also increased to ₹26,80,000/-. Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 5 However, in the original agreement dated 14.01.2013, no such condition was incorporated. The complainant neither surrendered the original agreement with them, nor gave any consent to comply with the conditions enumerated in letter dated 09.11.2015. Keeping in view the increased cost of the said flat, the complainant is liable to get back his amount, along with increase of natural accretion in the cost of the flat, in question, to the tune of ₹8,00,500/-. It was further averred that the complainant also received demand letter dated 17.11.2015 for depositing ₹1,86,300/-, including Service Tax. The complainant got prepared the draft of the said amount. However, he sent reply through e-mail dated 29.04.2016 to the opposite parties, to which no response was received from them. The opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant suffered mental agony and harassment due to the aforesaid acts and conduct of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the complaint, raising certain preliminary objections that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint, as the transaction between the parties is sale agreement of the flat, in question, for total sale consideration of ₹20,25,000/- and the complainant failed to deposit the further instalments, as per the agreement. The complainant is not a 'consumer', as he and his mother have applied for flat. His mother was allotted flat No.502 and she filed Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 6 CC No.731 of 2017 before this Commission for getting refund of ₹5,06,250/-. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, if a person books more than one flat, then he/she is not a 'consumer under the Act. Besides this, as per Arbitration Clause of the agreement, the dispute between the parties is liable to be resolved by the Arbitrator. Moreover, since the complainant is in default of payment of instalments, so the amount deposited by him is liable to be forfeited, as per Clause-7 of the agreement. No cause of action arose to the complainant to file this complaint. The last payment was received on 01.05.2013 and by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the rights of the complainant in respect of the flat, in question, have already been extinguished. Since the complainant has not paid the whole amount, so he is liable to pay compensation for breach of contract, in view of Section 75 of the Contract Act, 1872 and the opposite parties are entitled to compensation of ₹5,00,000/- from him. On merits, sale of the flat, in question, to the complainant and deposit of ₹5,06,250/- were admitted. Similar other pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated and denying other allegations of the complaint, dismissal thereof was prayed.
Evidence of the Parties
3. To prove his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex.CA, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.
4. The opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Managing Director, as Ex.OP-A. Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 7 Contentions of the Parties
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the complainant purchased the flat, in question, from the opposite parties and agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed between the parties. The complainant deposited a sum of ₹5,06,250/- against the sale consideration of the flat i.e. ₹20,25,000/- with the opposite parties, but they failed to complete/develop the flat, in question, so as to deliver its possession within the stipulated period. Even the opposite parties transposed the project name from "Sunny Urban Greens" to "Sunny Parkway", vide letter dated 09.11.2015, Ex.C-2 and also increased the price of the flat to ₹26,80,000/-, unilaterally. The complainant did not pay the further instalments, as there was no development at the site. Thus, the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for by him in the complaint.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the complainant and his mother (complainant in CC No.731 of 2017) have purchased different flats and, thus, the complainant is not a 'consumer', under the Act. As per Arbitration Clause of the agreement, the matter between the parties is triable by the Arbitrator. The last payment was received on 01.05.1013 and, thus, the rights of the complainant have already been extinguished, as per Section 27 of the Limitation Act. It was further contended that the complainant failed to pay entire amount and Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 8 committed wilful default and, thus, the amount deposited by him was forfeited, as per terms of the agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. So far as the objection of the opposite parties that as per Arbitration Clause of the agreement, the matter between the parties is liable to be referred for arbitration, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many judgments that the remedy, provided under Section 3 of Act is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement to settle disputes through arbitration will not debar the Consumer Fora, to entertain the complaint, filed by the consumer. Accordingly, the said objection of the opposite parties is rejected.
10. So far as the other objection of the opposite parties that the complainant and his mother purchased two different flats and booking of more than one flat excludes the complainant from the purview of the definition of 'consumer', it is relevant to mention that the opposite parties failed to prove that the complainant indulged in sale purchase of units for commercial purpose. Hon'ble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 9 relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for profit. In the case in hand also, there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant indulged in commercial activities to earn profits and that he has purchased the flat, in question, for further commercial purpose to gain profits. Therefore, the said objection of the opposite parties is also rejected.
11. So far as the other objection of the opposite parties that the last payment was received on 01.05.2013 and by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the rights of the complainant in respect of the flat, in question, have already been extinguished, is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the opposite parties have failed to complete/develop their project, so as to deliver its possession to the allottees, including the complainant, within the stipulated period. Thus, there is continuous cause of action in favour of the complainant against them. Thus, the said objection of the opposite parties is declined accordingly.
Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 10
12. Now coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the flat, in question, was allotted to the complainant by the opposite parties and agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed between them on 14.01.2013. The price of the flat was ₹20,25,000/-. The complainant deposited ₹5,06,250/- towards the price of the flat, in question, and the opposite parties duly admitted this fact in Para No.10 of their reply. As per Clause 10 of the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered after two years from the date of the agreement, i.e. upto 14.01.2015. However, the opposite parties failed to complete their project by that date. Rather, they changed the project name from "Sunny Urban Greens" to "Sunny Parkway", vide letter dated 09.11.2015, and even increased the cost of the flat to ₹26,80,000/-, without any prior notice or consent of the complainant. The opposite parties tendered only the affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Managing Director, Ex.OPA, which is nothing but the verbatim reproduction of the reply filed by them. Except this affidavit, no other evidence has been led by the opposite parties to prove that they are in a position to deliver the possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant or that they have obtained the requisite approvals, sanctions and licenses to develop/raise the project, in question.
13. All the above facts and circumstances clearly prove that the opposite parties have not complied with the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA"). As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 11 nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days, notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with section 3 of the PAPRA.
14. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony, but they failed to produce on record any such permission/sanction/licence. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA.
15. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. There is no evidence or pleading on record on behalf of the opposite parties in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
16. As per Rule 17 of the "Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 12
17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub- section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."
17. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The amount received from the complainant-buyer was required to be deposited in the schedule Bank, as per Section 9 of PAPRA and we wonder where that amount had been going. The complainant cannot be made to wait for possession for an indefinite period. The opposite parties are not to play the game at the cost of others. When it insists upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, it is to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the agreement. The opposite parties have failed to comply the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop their project. There is no evidence on record to prove that delivery of possession of the flat, in question, is possible in near future. Thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest and compensation.
18. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:
i) to refund ₹5,06,250/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 13
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.731 of 2017
19. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.731 of 2017 (Ms. Manjit Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Land Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), the complainant purchased flat No.502 (measuring 730 sq.ft.), 5th Floor, Narwana Towers in the project of the opposite parties known as "Sunny Urban Greens" for a sum of ₹20,25,000/-. The complainant deposited ₹5,06,250/- towards the price of the flat, in question, with the opposite parties. Agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed between the parties on 14.01.2013 and as per Clause 10 thereof, the possession of the flat was to be delivered after two years from the date of the agreement. However, they failed to develop/complaint the project, in question, so as to deliver the possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant. The opposite parties sent letter dated 09.11.2015, Ex.C-2, stating that the project "Sunny Urban Greens" has been transposed and rechristened as "Sunny Park Way" and that M/s Park Ways Home joined hands with M/s Bajwa Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to develop the said project with improved proficiencies. The complainant was asked to deposit original agreement dated 14.01.2013 and payment receipts with them. The cost of the flat was also increased to ₹26,80,000/- unilaterally. Hence, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to deliver possession of the dwelling unit, in question; Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 14
OR in the Alternative:
to refund the amount of ₹5,06,250/-, along with interest at the rate of 10% till realization;
ii) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant;
iii) to pay ₹20,000/- towards litigation expenses; and
iv) it is also prayed that any other relief or direction, as may be deemed fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, be also awarded/issued.
20. The opposite parties filed reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No. 730 of 2017.
21. The complainant tendered her own affidavit as Ex.CA, along with documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C1/A to Ex.C-5.
22. The opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Managing Director, as Ex.OPA.
23. In this case also, the complainant deposited a sum of ₹5,06,250/- with the opposite parties, who have duly admitted this fact in Para No.2 of their reply.
24. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017, this complaint is allowed, with following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to refund ₹5,06,250/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 15
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.760 of 2017
25. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.760 of 2017 (Ravinder Singh v. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited & Anr.), the complainant purchased apartment No.2568, F-21, Sector 74-A-117 at "Sunny Apartment", Mohali, having area of 900 sq.ft. for ₹25,00,200/- (rounded to ₹25,00,000/-) from the opposite parties. Agreement, Ex.C- 1, was executed between the parties on 07.07.2011. The complainant paid a total sum of ₹6,25,000/- with the opposite parties against the price of the apartment, as mentioned on 2nd Page of the agreement, Ex.C-1. The possession was to be delivered within a period of 18 months from the date of the agreement i.e. by 07.01.2013. However, the opposite parties failed to carry out any development work at the site, in order to deliver possession of the said unit to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the complainant sought the following directions:
i) to refund the amount of ₹6,25,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and
iii) to pay ₹44,000/-, as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 16
26. The opposite parties filed reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No. 730 of 2017.
27. The complainant tendered his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12.
28. The opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Managing Director, as Ex.OPA.
29. In this case also, the complainant deposited a sum of ₹6,25,000/- with the opposite parties, who have duly admitted this fact in Para No.4 of their reply on merits.
30. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017, this complaint is allowed, with following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to refund ₹6,25,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.853 of 2017
31. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.853 of 2017 (Vikas Bansal v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.), the complainant purchased a flat in the project of the opposite party in Sector 74A-117 for a total sale price of ₹24,00,000/- and entered into an agreement, Ex.C-1, with it on 07.06.2011. He paid a total sum of ₹9,60,000/- with the opposite party towards the price of the said flat, as per document Ex.C-2. The Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 17 possession of the said flat was to be delivered within two years because the work of the project was under construction. However, the opposite party failed to complete/develop the said project, in order to deliver possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite party:
i) to refund ₹9,60,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by him; and
iii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as litigation expenses.
32. The opposite party filed reply, on the similar lines of the reply filed by the opposite parties in Consumer Complaint No. 730 of 2017.
33. The complainant tendered his own affidavit as Ex.CA, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.
34. The opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Managing Director, as Ex.OPA.
35. In this case also, the complainant deposited a sum of ₹9,60,000/- with the opposite party, who has duly admitted this fact in Para No.4 of preliminary objections in its reply.
36. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017, this complaint is allowed, with following directions to the opposite party:
Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 18
i) to refund ₹9,60,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.854 of 2017
37. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.854 of 2017 (Sadhu Singh v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.), the complainant purchased a flat in the project of the opposite party in Sector 74A-117 for a total sale price of ₹24,00,000/- and entered into an agreement, Ex.C-1, with it on 07.06.2011. He paid a total sum of ₹9,60,000/- with the opposite party towards the price of the said flat, as per document Ex.C-2. The possession of the said flat was to be delivered within two years because the work of the project was under construction. However, the opposite party failed to complete/develop the said project, in order to deliver possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite party:
i) to refund ₹9,60,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by him; and
iii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 19
38. The opposite party filed reply, on the similar lines of the reply filed by the opposite parties in Consumer Complaint No. 730 of 2017.
39. The complainant tendered his own affidavit as Ex.CA, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6, including Ex.C-6A to Ex.C-6D.
40. The opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Managing Director, as Ex.OPA.
41. In this case also, the complainant deposited a sum of ₹9,60,000/- with the opposite party, who has duly admitted this fact in Para No.4 of preliminary objections in its reply.
42. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017, this complaint is allowed, with following directions to the opposite party:
i) to refund ₹9,60,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.
43. Compliance of the orders passed in all the complaints shall be made by the opposite parties within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.
44. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases. Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2017 20
45. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copies of the order by hand and it would be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 18, 2018.
(Gurmeet S)