State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) ... vs 1. Kamal Arora on 10 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 399 of 2013 Date of Institution : 13.09.2013 Date of Decision : 10/12/2013 1. M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., through its Managing Director, C/o SCO No. 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla. 2. Smt.Indra Singla wife of Sh.R.M.Singla, Ex-Director of M/s New Generation Real Estate (P.) Ltd., SCO No.373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 V e r s u s 1. Kamal Arora Original Allottee and resident of Flat No.432, on the 4th Floor, Block H, New Generation Apartments at Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Patiala now in Mohali-140603. ....Respondent No.1/complainant 2. Sh.K.N.Pandey, Manager/Authorized Signatory of M/s New Generation Real Estate (P.) Ltd., C/o SCO No.373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and presently resident of Village Nada U.T., Chandigarh (service dispensed with vide order dated 16.09.2013). ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Dinesh Madra, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, Authorized Representative of Sh. Kamal Arora, Respondent No.1, in person.
Service of Respondent No.2 dispensed with, vide order dated 16.09.2013.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.07.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1) and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now the appellants), as under:-
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. OPs No.1 & 2 are directed :-
i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
ii) OPs No.1 & 2 shall get executed the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, for which, the stamp registration and other incidental charges would be borne by the complainant. If the complainant refuses to get the sale deed executed and registered, he would be doing so at his own risk and responsibility.
iii) OPs No.1 & 2 shall furnish the completion and occupation certificate of the apartment to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) OPs No.1 & 2 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.
This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within the stipulated period, as directed above, failing which, OPs No.1 & 2 would be liable to pay the double of the compensation amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides payment of litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Name of Opposite Party No.3 (now respondent no.2) was deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties, by the District Forum, vide order dated 21.04.2009.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties (now the appellants) gave advertisements for construction of Phase II apartments at Zirakpur and attracted by the same, the complainant and his family, visited the site of the complex, at Zirakpur. They were duly impressed, by the magnificent entrance, from NH-22 side, and existence of beautiful central park. Brochures/Prospectus of Phase II apartments were also issued. Vide brochures Annexures C-1 and C-2, it was represented that, the Town Planning Scheme, had been duly sanctioned by the Punjab Govt., vide Gazette Notification No.4/8/2001-2LGIII/3238 dated 12.03.2001. It was also mentioned, in the Brochure Annexure C-I, by the Opposite Parties, that in Pocket-V, there will be, a community centre, and a lush green belt, to eclipse the ugly sight of railway track and to give better look of Shivalik Hills, to the buyers of apartments/flats, on the North East side of Phase III, which was to come next to Phase II. The complainant was also shown a Certificate of Registration as Promoter dated 05.10.2004, issued by the Addl. Chief Administrator PUDA, Mohali (Annexure C-2/A). Opposite Party No.3, showed the model flat, in Phase II, to the complainant, and further added that the other flats, in Phase II would be like the model flat or even better than that. Opposite Party No.3 also explained the complainant that Pocket H 5 would have a Community Hall, and a lush green belt and the shopping complex would be a single storeyed small group of shops, to cater the requirements of residents of New Generation Apartments, exclusively, and entry for the outsiders would not be allowed. Believing the assurances, given by Opposite Party No.3, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and the contents of advertisements and brochures, referred to above, the complainant made up his mind to purchase an apartment, in Phase II and paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards booking. Allotment letter dated 21.07.2003, copy whereof, is Annexure C-3, alongwith the payment schedule of monthly installments etc. upto 19.04.2004, was attached. Subsequently, Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12 was also executed between the parties.
4. It was stated that the complainant made a detailed study of the Clauses of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12 ,and asked a number of questions, from Opposite Party No.3, who gave the replies that the initial plan of the Complex was slightly changed/amended, which was sent for necessary sanctions to the Competent Authorities. The complainant was also told that after receipt of the revised sanctioned plan, the same shall be shown to the allottees. The Opposite Parties also wrote letter dated 15.03.2002 Annexure C-5, to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, requesting for change of scheme, from present one to Group Housing completely. Vide letter Annexure C-6 dated 28.06.2002, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Zirakpur, was requested for amendment, in the Town Planning Scheme of New Generation Real Estates. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, wrote letter dated 20.09.2002 Annexure C-7, to the Director, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab, recommending that the said scheme may further be forwarded to the Government, for sanction of the amendment proposed. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, also wrote letter dated 17.01.2003 Annexure C-8, to the Opposite Parties, that it would be their sole responsibility, to take appropriate sanction for change in the scheme, from the concerned Department/ Government. It was further stated that even the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Local Government (C.T.P. Branch), in his order dated 28.10.2005 - Annexure C-9, observed that the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, adopted the revised scheme layout plan, but without following the due procedure. It was further stated that letter dated 23.09.2005, Annexure C-10, was written by the Assistant Town Planner (M) for Chief Town Planner (LG) to the Executive Officer. Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, directing to take post-facto approval of amendment, in the Town Planning Scheme of New Generation Apartments, from the Government, after following due procedure.
5. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties made false claims, that they had got valid sanction, from the Competent Authorities, with regard to amendment of layout plan, vide letter dated 02.03.2007 Annexure C-11. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties told that a sum of Rs.10,000/- would have to be paid, at the time of taking over of possession of the apartment, in April, 2004.
6. It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties assured the complainant that conveyance deed would be executed, in his name, and till the same was executed, no maintenance charges would be charged from him. It was further stated that it was told to the complainant, that if there was any alteration, in the plans or the projections etc., a Supplementary Agreement as per Clause 5 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, may have to be executed, between the parties.
7. It was further stated that the complainant visited the Head Office of Opposite Party No.1, every month, for depositing the cheque personally, against the monthly installments, towards the apartment, in question, but on none of the visits, either Opposite Party No.1 or any other staff member, ever pointed out any changes, in the plans/projections, as given in the brochure for Phase II. It was further stated that no Supplementary Agreement was got executed, between the parties, as per Clause 5 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, till 25.04.2004, when the possession of apartment, in question, was handed over to the complainant, vide possession letter, copy whereof is Annexure C-13, after receipt of the entire sale consideration thereof. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, never communicated to the complainant, in respect of any changes, in plans or projections. It was further stated Opposite Party No.1, carved out major changes, in the New Generation Apartment Complex, totally against the interests of the complainant and other allottees. It was further stated that the possession of apartment was given to the complainant on 25.04.2004, and the possession letter dated 16.06.2004, copy whereof is Annexure C-13, was issued.
8. It was further stated that, at the time of taking over the possession, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as security and maintenance charges, were also obtained from the complainant vide Annexure C-14. The complainant raised an objection but the representative of Opposite Party No.1 explained that the said amount would be retained only for a period of 3 to 6 months, which period was required by the Company to transfer the property, in the name of the complainant, and no further maintenance charges would be charged from him. It was further stated that keys of the apartment were handed over to the complainant and Opposite Party No.3 told him that Opposite Party No.1 had decided to handover over charge of maintenance of apartments, to S.S.Maintenance Agency, Zirakpur (Pb.), w.e.f. April, 2004. The complainant was requested to pay Rs.12,000/-, as advance maintenance charges, for two years. It was further stated that left with no other option, an amount of Rs.12,000/-, was deposited by the complainant, with S.S. Maintenance Agency, Zirakpur (Pb.),. vide receipt dated 25.04.2004Annexure C-15.
9. It was further stated that the complainant asked a number of questions, to the representative of Opposite Party No.1, in response whereto, it was told to him that the completion and occupation certificates were already applied for, and the same would be received shortly, from the Competent Authorities. He was also told that, thereafter, further action would be taken to transfer the property, in the name of the complainant, by way of conveyance deed. It was further told to the complainant that Opposite Party No.1 had rescheduled its policy, in the matter of maintenance of apartments and complex, for which, it would be charging Rs.500/- p.m., from him.
10. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 made false assurances, in the advertisements and brochures. It was further stated that the complex was no longer Abode for the Elite. The allottees/residents of Phase I and Phase II were up in arms, with the Opposite Parties, due to total lack of clarity, in respect of living conditions of the whole project, as there was no provision of adequate civic amenities, essential services and common amenities. It was further stated that even there was no separate feeder of electricity for the complex, and the life of the complainant was miserable, due to acute humidity, dust, flying cement particles, silica in water, mosquitoes, noise etc. It was further stated that the construction activity in Phase III was in full swing and 50% roads, which were laid, were damaged. It was further stated that as a soothing measure Opposite Party No.1, issued letter No.NGRE/Zirakpur/2267 dated 11.02.2005 Annexure C-16, in accordance with which, the Opposite Parties withdrew the decision of charging maintenance charges of Rs.500/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.02.2005. It was further stated that, in another attempt to calm the complainant and other allottees, another letter No.NGRE/Zirakpur/2283 dated 21.02.2005 was issued, by Opposite Party No.1, vide which, a meeting was called on 06.03.2005, but it was preponed to 26.02.2005 and the minutes of the meeting were issued vide letter dated 26.02.2005 Annexure C-17. It was further stated that total concentration of the Opposite Parties, was focused, on the construction work, in Phases III and IV, and further attention was totally towards the construction activity started in Phase V, and the commercial complex. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, completely ignored the pending works, in Phase III. It was further stated that the complainant and his family members, residing at the 4th floor, faced terrible problems, due to non-operative lifts and total lack of sanitation, in the complex.
11. It was further stated that, in the month of January, 2005, construction activity was on/started, in Phase IV apartments, as shown in the brochure, for Phase III, and, at that time, there was an attractive and magnificent entrance to the complex, from NH-22. It was further stated that there was an outer attractive gate, followed by a road, having a small beautiful park. It was further stated that, suddenly, after January, 2005, the construction activity started near the internal gate, in Pocket-V. There was basement digging at place, where the Company had projected a Community Hall. However, the construction activity in Phase V was not for Community Centre. The complainant came to know that Pocket V was going to be multi-storeyed flats, as basement + 5 floors and basement + 6 floors. It was further stated that there was no approval, from the Punjab Government, with regard to construction, in Phases V and VI. It was further stated that the Registered Society took up the issues, with the Government Authorities, but they were hand in glove, with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the construction activity started with digging for basement for 3 blocks, to come up and continued giving rise to endless problems, for the complainant, and his family members and made their life miserable. The unhygienic conditions made the complainant and his family members sick. The magnificent entrance, as shown in the brochure was totally defaced by Opposite Party No.1. The area of complex, marked as commercial complex, for the residents of New Generation Apartments, was suddenly snatched away by the Opposite Parties, and instead of a small shopping complex for the residents, multi-storeyed shopping complex cum Banquet hall, was raised, exclusively for the outside public. The Opposite Parties did not make it compulsory, for the buyers of apartments, to buy a car parking space, alongwith the apartment. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 had not provided any common car parking, for the residents, which resulted into parking of the same (cars) here and there, causing great hardships.
12. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, repeatedly advertised, in leading newspapers and declared that the New Generation Apartments was a Town Planning Scheme, approved by the Punjab Govt., but after having sold the apartments, it had hardly adhered to any provisions, contained in the Acts/Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It was further stated that the Clauses in the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, were incorporated, under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never applied for the scheme under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. It was further stated that vide Clauses 13 and 17 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, Opposite Party No.1 promised to get the conveyance deed of the apartments, executed and registered, in the name of the complainant, within 3 to 6 months from the date of possession having been delivered to him, in April, 2004. It was further stated that even after 4 years, Opposite Party No.1, failed to execute and get registered the sale deed, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that even Opposite Party No.1 was not successful, in getting the Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate, from the Competent Authorities, so far. It was further stated that even the amended lay out plan/Town Planning Scheme, was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority/ Government of Punjab. It was further stated that, on account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, as under:-
i. To pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.18,20,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, tavelling/ miscellaneous charges, incurred, for visits, to their office, a number of times, plus Rs.2000/-, per month, from the date of delivery of possession, till they streamlined everything;
ii. To execute sale deed/conveyance deed, and get registered the same, in favour of the complainant;
iii. To obtain no objection completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authorities, with regard to the apartment, in question;
iv. To provide community centre and other facilities as mentioned in the brochures and advertisements; and v. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/-.
13. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, as an equally efficacious remedy was availed of, by the complainant, by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, in the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, which was dismissed in limine, vide order dated 01.09.2005. It was further pleaded that prior to the filing of Civil Writ Petition aforesaid, the so called Welfare Society, under the name and style of New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, under the President-ship of Mr. R.K. Saini, one of the complainants, filed a similar complaint, in District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh, which was dismissed, vide order dated 18.12.2008. It was further pleaded that the said Society had also filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No.02 of 2005, in this Commission, against the Opposite Parties, wherein an application for the dismissal of complaint was moved. It was further pleaded that the said application was allowed by this Commission, and, thereafter, the complainant never returned. It was further pleaded that the aforesaid facts were concealed by the complainant, and, as such, he was liable to be thrown out, at the very threshold. It was stated that, on account of these reasons also, the complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further pleaded that, as per the directions of the Hon`ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the State Government got an enquiry conducted, from the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, who after thorough investigation of not only the records, but also on the basis of spot inspection, submitted his report dated 28.10.2005 to the Government. It was further stated that the said report clearly falsified the allegations of the complainant, leveled in the Civil Writ Petition, referred to above. It was further stated that the said report of the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, was, accepted by the complainant, and, thus, the matter attained finality. It was further stated that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had developed a duly approved and sanctioned project, under the Town Planning Scheme of the Punjab Government, sanctioned vide Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It was further stated that various advertisements were got published and sign boards etc. were affixed, for the promotion and sale of apartments, in the duly approved and sanctioned complex, by the Opposite Parties. It was denied that the complainant was allured by false promises, having been made by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant and other allottees, after fully satisfying themselves and verifying the documents, as also the details mentioned, in the advertisements, decided to buy the apartment, in question, and only thereafter, the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, was executed between him and the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant, and the other prospective buyers, were very much aware about the lay out plans, prior to the allotment of apartments, in question. It was denied that sanction of lay out plan was awaited at any stage. It was further stated that the construction of complex was carried out, by the Opposite Parties, in a phased manner that too, as per the drawings approved by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, and there was no violation of any of the plans for construction. It was denied that Opposite Party No.1 ever committed to construct a Community Centre, or provide a lush green belt, to eclipse the ugly sight aforesaid. It was further stated that since there was no alteration of the layout plan, to the detriment of the interests of the complainant, nor there was any change of any kind of super area, in respect of the apartment, in question, there was no question of executing a Supplementary Agreement, as envisaged under Clause 5 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12. It was denied that any clarification about completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, was given to the complainant, and it was due to that reason, that conveyance deed could not be executed and got registered. It was further stated that the complainant paid the maintenance charges, as payable under the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, without any objection or protest. It was further stated that the complainant was liable to pay interest, on the delayed payments, in terms of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 24.07.2003 Annexure C-12, and he could not raise any grouse, with regard to the same. It was further stated that all the facilities and amenities, which are mandatory, had already been provided, and that was why, no grouse was raised with regard to the same, within the period of limitation. It was denied that there was defacement, on account of shifting of gate or the same has become ugly. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
14. Name of Opposite Party No.3 was deleted by the District Forum, vide order dated 21.04.2009.
15. The complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, led evidence, in support of their case.
16. After hearing the complainant, in person, alongwith his authorized Agent, Sh. R.C. Khurana, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
17. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
18. Service of Respondent No.2 was dispensed with, vide order dated 16.09.2013
19. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana, Authorized Representative of Sh. Kamal Arora, respondent No.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, including written arguments, carefully.
20. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that original lay out plan, in respect of the apartments, was sanctioned by the Competent Authority, vide Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001. He further submitted that the amended lay out plan, was submitted by the appellants/Opposite Parties, to the Competent Authority. He further submitted that according to Section 192 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, if the amended lay out plan was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority, within six months, from the date of submission of the same, the same was deemed to be sanctioned. He further submitted that no misleading information or advertisement was given by the appellants/Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the construction of the complex was raised, in accordance with the lay out plan, approved by the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur. He further submitted that, thus, construction could not be said to be illegal. He further submitted that the possession was delivered to the complainant, in respect of the apartment, in question, on 25.04.2004, and the complaint was filed on 07.10.2008, hence the same was barred by limitation. He further submitted that earlier a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which was dismissed as withdrawn, and, as such, the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was not maintainable. He further submitted that even earlier, a complaint was filed before this Commission, which was returned to the complainant, with a liberty to file a fresh one, after removing the defects. He further submitted that, as such, the complaint was not maintainable. He further submitted that, even a Civil Writ Petition was filed by the so called Society, of which the complainant was one of the members, in the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein, pleas which were taken in the complaint, were also taken, but the same was dismissed, at the preliminary stage. He further submitted that the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, was appointed to submit the report. He submitted the report dated 28.10.2005, which had attained finality. He further submitted that the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, was not applicable to the instant case, and, as such, the question of obtaining completion and occupation certificates, did not at all arise. He further submitted that there was no defacement of the magnificent entrance of the complex. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in accepting the complaint.
21. On the other hand, the authorized representative, on behalf of the respondent/complainant, submitted that, in the brochure, as also, in the advertisements Annexure C-1 to C-2, false and misleading information was given, by the Opposite Parties, to the effect, that the project was duly approved by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that the amended lay out plan, was submitted by the Opposite Parties, to the Competent Authority, but no sanction, so far has been granted, to the same, and, as such, it could not be said that the project was duly approved by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, were applicable to the project of the Opposite Parties, and they were required to obtain the occupation and completion certificates, before handing over the possession of apartment, to the complainant, as in the absence thereof, possession could not be said to be legal and valid. He further submitted that even magnificent entrance was defaced, by raising more construction. He further submitted that even the Opposite Parties, being promoters, did not have licence, for development of the project, at the time, the advertisements were made and the information was given in the brochures. He further submitted that the complaint was not barred by time. He further submitted that Section 3 of the Act, provides an additional remedy, and, as such, filing of Writ Petition or its decision thereof, could not debar, the complainant from instituting the complaint. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were guilty of deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. He further submitted the District Forum was right, in accepting the complaint.
22. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. No doubt, the complainant/respondent was handed over the possession of residential apartment, on 25.04.2004, yet the sale deed/conveyance deed, after obtaining occupation and completion certificates, from the Competent Authorities, was not executed, in his favour, by the time, the complaint was filed, and even till date. There was, thus, continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant, to file the complaint. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well, that the land, in question, was under
litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
23. The second question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint was not maintainable, in view of the earlier complaints, having been filed by the complainant, which were dismissed as withdrawn. It may be stated here, that Consumer Complaint bearing No.02 of 2005, under Section 17 of the Act, titled as New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs. R.M. Singla (Promoter and Builder), New Generation Apartments Real Estate Ltd., was filed on 11.03.2005. The Counsel for the complainant, therein, made a statement to the effect that the complaint be allowed to be returned to it, with liberty to file a fresh one, describing categorically and specifically, the person, who was authorized by the Society, under resolution passed, to file the same. Accordingly, the prayer was allowed. Another Consumer Complaint No.04 of 2005, was filed under Section 17 of the Act, on 07.04.2005, by New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, through its President-Mr. R.K. Saini, one of the complainants, against R.M. Singla (Promoter and Builder), New Generation Apartments Real Estate Ltd., before this Commission. An application was moved under Order 23 of Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, for withdrawal of the complaint, with liberty to file a fresh one, on the same cause of action, before the appropriate Forum. This Commission, vide order dated 19.09.2005, allowed the application, filed by the complainant, and it was permitted to withdraw the complaint, with a liberty to file a fresh one, before the appropriate Forum. Further liberty was also granted to it, that, if any cause of action, or deficiency, in rendering service, was made out, then it was also permitted to file a fresh complaint, with amended grounds, in the Forum. Another Consumer Complaint bearing No.552 of 2008, was filed by Ram Karan Saini Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate (P) Ltd. and Ors., before District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 08.09.2011. Since, two Consumer Complaints filed in this Commission, referred to above, were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh one, on the same cause of action, or even on a different cause of action, before the appropriate Forum, and one complaint filed by Ram Karan Saini, in his individual capacity against M/s New Generation Real Estate (P) Ltd., and Ors., was dismissed as withdrawn, by District Forum (I), the complainant, in our considered opinion, could certainly file the Consumer Complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen. Had, no liberty been granted by this Commission, to the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, referred to above, to file a complaint afresh, the matter would have been different. Under these circumstances, the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was legally maintainable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24. The third question, that falls for consideration, is, as to what was the effect of the decision of Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, filed by the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, through its President- Sh. R.K. Saini, against the State of Punjab and others, on the filing of the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen. It may be stated here, that in the Civil Writ Petition, aforesaid, no notice was issued to the respondents, and the same was disposed of, vide order dated 01.09.2005-Annexure OP-4, directing respondents no.2 to 4 therein, to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 07.06.2005 and 18.07.2005, and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. The aforesaid Writ Petition, was, therefore, not disposed of, on merits. Even otherwise, it may be state here, that Section 3 of the Act, provides an additional remedy. With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Act is required to be made, which reads as under ;
3.Act not in derogation of any other law.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
25. Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was filed by the complainant, for deficiency, in rendering service, and adoption of unfair trade practice, by the Opposite Parties. The mere filing of Civil Writ Petition, aforesaid, which was ultimately, not disposed of on merits, would not oust the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. As stated above, since, Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force, the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was certainly maintainable. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I. Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC).
26. The fourth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, were/are applicable to the project, in question, or not. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellants, submitted that since Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, was issued by the Government of Punjab, in exercise of powers vested in it, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, for khasra Nos.188, 189, 190, 198, 199 and 200, New Generation Flats, in village Dhakoli, Hadbast No.48 measuring 23 Bigha 10 Biswa, within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, as per lay out plan drawing No.STP(S)3/2000 dated 17.08.2000, the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, were not applicable.
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The project, in question, was a Group Housing Project. Sub Section (2) of Section 1 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, clearly lays down that it shall extend to the whole of the State of Punjab. No exception was engrafted to Sub-Section (2) of Section (1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Section 2 of the aforesaid Act, defines advertisement, allottee, apartment, etc. etc. Section 2(y) of the said Act, defines promoter as the person, (a) who constructs or causes to be constructed building consisting of apartments, or, converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons, and includes his assigns; or, (b) who develops land into a colony, whether or not he also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons, all or some of the plots, whether open or with structures thereon; and (c) where the person who constructs or converts a building or develops a colony and the person who sells apartments or plot are different persons, the term includes both of them. Explanation (2) to Section 2(y) of the said Act defines, that a person who acts as described in Sub-Clause (c) of Clause (y) shall be deemed to be a promoter, even if, (i) he styles himself as a builder, colonizer, contractor, developer, estate promoter or by any other name; or (ii) he claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney, from the owner of the land, on which the building is constructed or colony is developed. Section 3 of the said Act, relates to the general liabilities of promoter. Section 4 of the said Act, relates to the issuing of advertisement or prospectus, by the promoter. Section 5 of the said Act, lays down that any promoter, who desires to develop a land into a colony, shall make an application, in the prescribed form, alongwith the prescribed information and with the prescribed fee, to the Competent Authority, for grant of permission, for the same and separate permission was necessary to be obtained, for each colony. Section 7 of the aforesaid Act relates to the registration of agreements of sale. Section 14 relates to the occupation and completion certificates, required to be obtained by the promoter, builder, colonizer etc. etc. Section 43 lays down the over-riding effect of the said Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, contained in any other law, for the time being, in force, or in any contract. Since, the Opposite Parties/appellants are the promoters and they developed the land, by constructing the apartments, for the purpose of sale/allotment thereof, to various allottees, they were governed by the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Even, as stated above, Section 43 clearly lays down, that the provisions of this Act shall have the over-riding effect, notwithstanding anything, to the contrary, contained in any other law, for the time being, in force, or in any contract. No doubt, Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, was issued under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The provisions of both the Acts, may proceed parallel, in different areas, without overlapping each other, but it would not be correct to say that the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 were not applicable, to the housing project, in question, developed by the Opposite Parties/appellants, by raising construction of apartments, possession whereof was delivered to various allottees, including the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect that the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, are not applicable to the instant case, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
27. The fifth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the advertisement, copy whereof is Annexure C-1 of 7th December 2003, in the Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, a misleading information was given by the appellants/Opposite Parties that the project, in question, was a Punjab Government approved project, or not. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that the original Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned vide Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, by the Punjab Government. Admittedly, the lay out plan was revised by the appellants/Opposite Parties. The question arises, as to whether, by the time, the advertisement copy whereof is Annexure C-1, referred to above, was given, the said lay out plan, was duly approved by the Competent Authority or not. The answer to this question, is in the negative, as would be discussed hereinafter. Earlier, Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, was filed by the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, through its President, Sh. R.K. Saini, which was disposed of, at the preliminary stage, directing respondents no.2 to 4 therein, to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 07.06.2005 and 18.07.2005, and dispose of the same, in accordance with the law, by passing a speaking order. After the order in Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, was passed by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sh.B.R.Bajaj, Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, conducted an enquiry and submitted the report dated 28.10.2005 Annexure C-9. From Annexure C-9, report of Sh.B.R.Bajaj, Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, it is revealed that Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, for the purpose of carving out a Town Planning Scheme for an area measuring 23 Bigha 10 Biswa, situated within its Limits, vide its resolution No.62 dated 05.04.2000, resolved the area as Unbuilt. The proposal of Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur was examined at the Govt. level and vide notification dated 11.5.2000, the scheme area was confirmed as unbuilt. It was also held that the land owner was to bear the total cost of development of the scheme area, as per the undertaking given by him (land owner) to the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur. The draft layout plan of the scheme was formulated by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, and then it was sent to CTP (LG) through STP Ludhiana, for technical clearance. After technical approval of the layout of the scheme, Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, vide its resolution No.57 dated 18.11.2000, adopted the layout plan of Town Planning Scheme and the Government was requested to accord final approval to the same (Town Planning Scheme), to be known as New Generation Apartments Scheme. After taking technical advice, on the amended layout from STP (LG), Nagar Panchayat, forwarded the case to the Director, Local Government Department, on 20.09.2002, for approval of the amended layout plan of the Town Planning Scheme, but without annexing therewith the amended layout. Thus, vide reference dated 27.01.2003, the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, was asked to send a copy of the amended layout plan, and was also advised to follow the required legal procedure, as per the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (as amended in 1994), for carrying out amendment, in the Town Planning Scheme, because the same procedure, as was required to be followed, at the time of framing of scheme needed to be followed, while making amendment, in the said scheme. Thereafter, the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, adopted the revised scheme layout plan, but without following the due procedure. The land owners submitted the building application, for construction of building, as per the revised layout plan of the scheme and the building applications were sanctioned by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, taking cognizance of the Government instructions dated 03.12.1984, wherein, it was clarified that after the scheme layout plan had been finally adopted by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, but was pending final approval of the Government, as provided under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, the ULB may sanction the building plans, accordingly, so that the land owners may not suffer unnecessarily. This fact of sanction of building plan, as per the revised layout plan, adopted by Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, vide resolution No.59 dated 17.09.2002, came to the knowledge of the Government, when the petitioner had approached it, vide representation dated 07.06.2005 that the land owners were violating the original layout plan of Town Planning Scheme, sanctioned by the Government on 12.03.2001.
28. Thereafter, the Government advised the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, that it may immediately apply for approval of the revised layout plan, as provided under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, because for carrying out any amendment, in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, the Government was the Competent Authority, for according final approval. It was also observed that since the land owners had started the construction, after taking approval of the building plans, as per the revised layout plan, duly adopted by Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, therefore, it (Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur) was advised not to interfere, in the construction activity, if the same was in conformity with the revised layout plan. Though, in the inquiry report dated 28.10.2005, the Principal Secretary to the Government Punjab, Department of Local Govt., Chandigarh, observed that the construction under reference had been raised, as per the revised Town Planning Scheme layout plan, yet his report also revealed that for carrying out any amendment, in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, Government is the Competent Authority, for according final approval. Annexure Q-1/D-5/ C-7 letter dated 20.09.2002, shows that the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur requested the Director, Department of Local Bodies Punjab, Chandigarh that the amended lay out plan of the Town Planning Scheme of New Generation Apartments, be forwarded to the Government for according sanction. The Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, was required to follow the legal procedure for carrying out the amendment, in Town Planning Scheme, because the same procedure as was required to be followed at the time of framing of the scheme needed to be followed, while making amendment in the scheme. There is a letter dated 23.9.2005 Annexure Q-1/D-7/ C-10, sent to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur inter-alia showing that the Government had directed the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, to obtain the post-facto approval of amendment, in the Town Planning Scheme of New Generation Apartments, from the Government, after following due procedure. The Nagar Council Zirakpur received letter dated 14.03.2008 Annexure R-3/13, at page 384 of the District Forum file, from the Opposite Parties, making a request for ex-post-facto approval of the project, but without sending the old site plan and the site plan of construction raised at the spot.
29. The Opposite Parties were asked to provide the required documents and after the same were received, their request, for ex-post-facto approval was sent to the Government, through letter dated 09.07.2008 Annexure R-3/15. Thereafter, reminders were sent to the Government on 19.03.2009, 19.08.2009 and 14.09.2009, copies whereof are Annexure R-3/16 to R-3/18. After that the Government informed Nagar Council, Zirakpur, that it had already written a letter dated 12.08.2008, seeking some further details and documents. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the Opposite Parties, for sending the details and the documents referred to, in letter dated 12.08.2008. After receiving letter from the Opposite Parties, Nagar Council Zirakpur sent necessary recommendations through letter dated 28.12.2009 to the Government and the matter was pending with it (Government). The aforesaid resume of facts, clearly goes to prove that the layout plan of the amended scheme of 100% group housing, has not yet been approved, by the Competent Authority i.e. the Government of Punjab. Thus, a misleading advertisement, copy whereof is Annexure C-1, was given by the Opposite Parties, that the project, in question, was approved by the Government. In brochure Annexure C-2, it was also, in clear-cut terms, mentioned by the Opposite Parties, that this Town Planning Scheme had been duly sanctioned by the Punjab Govt. vide gazette Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001. By giving a misleading information in the advertisement, Annexure C-1 and the brochure Annexure C-2, that it was a Punjab Government approved project, though this fact was false, to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties, they certainly indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so.
30. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, took shelter under Section 192 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, that if the amended lay out plan was not sanctioned, within six months, from the date of submission of the same, then it was deemed to have been sanctioned. This submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, does not appear to be correct. From the resume of the facts, referred to in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident, that the Opposite Parties had not sent the requisite documents, asked for, by the Government, from time to time. Had all the documents, as asked for by the Government, been sent in time, and there had been no deficiency, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the matter would have been different. Only, in those circumstances, the Opposite Parties could take shelter, under the provisions of Section 192(4) of Punjab Municipal Act 1911. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
31. The sixth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, it was mandatory, on the part of the Opposite Parties, to obtain the completion and occupation certificates, in respect of the apartment, in question, in the first instance, and handover possession of the same (apartment), to the complainant, thereafter. Section 3(i)(j) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 clearly lays down that the Competent Authority, could direct the promoter not to allow persons, to enter into possession, until the occupation certificate, required under any law, was duly given by the appropriate Authority, under that law, and no person shall take possession of an apartment, until such occupation certificate was obtained. Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, reads as under:-
14.(1) It is the responsibility of the promoter,-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said Authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the Competent Authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all respects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under Section 5.
(2) The Authority referred to in Sub-Section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate
32. The conjoint reading of Sections 3(1)(j) and 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, clearly goes to show that it was the responsibility of the Opposite Parties, to obtain the completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, before handing over possession, to the complainant. In the absence of obtaining completion and occupation certificates, as required by the aforesaid provisions of law, the possession of the complainant, in respect of the apartment, in question, could not be said to be legal, in nature. There is nothing, on the record, that the completion and occupation certificates were obtained by the Opposite Parties. Had the Opposite Parties obtained the completion and occupation certificates, atleast copies thereof, would have been produced, on the record, by them. In the absence of the same, an adverse inference could be drawn, against the Opposite Parties that they had not obtained the same. Not only this, had the completion and occupation certificates been obtained by the Opposite Parties, they would have certainly supplied the same, to the complainant, as he took possession of the apartment, as far as back on 25.04.2004. Violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 3(1) (j) and Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, by not obtaining the completion and occupation certificates, handing over of the possession of apartment, in question, in the absence thereof, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.
33. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the construction was raised, as per the building plan, approved by the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, and this fact also stands supported from the report dated 28.10.2005, of the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh. According to the Counsel for the appellants, in case, the complainant/respondent was apprehending demolition of the apartment, allotted to him, on account of non-sanction of the revised lay out plan, then he could ask for refund of the amount, but he had not done so, and, as such, it could not be said that he had any grievance against the Opposite Parties. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. By taking possession of the apartment, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Parties, that the revised layout plan was got sanctioned from the Competent Authority, the complainant could not be said to have diluted or minimized the unfair trade practice, indulged into by the Opposite Parties, or deficiency, in rendering service, by them. It was for the respondent/complainant, to consider, as to what relief he wanted to claim, from the Opposite Parties. By not asking for the refund of amount, deposited by the complainant, towards the price of the said apartment, it could not be said that the Opposite Parties did not indulge into unfair trade practice, or there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on their part. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
34. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, on account of the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant, deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties could be said to be just and reasonable or the same is excessive. In qualifying the damages/compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in rendering service, by the Opposite Parties, the Consumer Foras are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change, in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule could be laid down, for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account, all the relevant factors and assess compensation, on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum, to grant compensation to the extent, it finds it reasonable, fair and proper, in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Charan Singh, Appeallant Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others, Respondents, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3138. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. In the instant case, the District Forum awarded compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, as also on account of deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice, by them (Opposite Parties). The complainant has been in possession of the apartment, since April 2004, and has been living therein, comfortably. The Opposite Parties also never refused to execute the sale deed, and get it registered, from the Competent Authority. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, the injustice occasioned to the complainant, mental agony and physical harassment caused to him, and the extent of deficiency, in rendering service and unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, in our considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is on the higher side. The compensation must be commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, and injustice occasioned to the complainant. It should neither be unreasonable and excessive, nor meagre. The compensation, in our considered opinion, is required to be reduced to Rs.1.50 lacs, which would serve the ends of justice. The order of the District Forum, thus, needs modification, to this extent.
35. In paragraph number 28 of the impugned order, the District Forum directed that, in case, the Opposite Parties did not comply with the order, within the stipulated period, as directed by it, then they shall be liable to pay double the compensation amount, alongwith interest @9% P.A., , from the date of filing the complaint, till realization. In our considered opinion, this direction given by the District Forum, also was not justified. As stated above, the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the consumer(s) at the hands of the service providers. Since, the complainant has been in possession of the apartment, w.e.f. April 2004, and living therein, with all the basic amenities/facilities, he was not required to be enriched by the District Forum. This direction of the District Forum, thus, deserves to be set aside.
36. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants and Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana, Authorized representative of respondent no.1.
37. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
i. To pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, as compensation, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice, instead of Rs.2 lacs, awarded by the District Forum, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii. To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
iii. To execute sale deed/conveyance deed, and get the same registered, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of completion and occupation certificates, on payment of stamp duty, registration fee, and other incidental charges, by the respondent/ complainant.
iv. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.
v. The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.
vi. In case, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 37 above, is not paid, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then it shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, and compliance of other directions, indicated above.
vii. Any other direction, given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, or in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.
38. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
39. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
10/12/2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg