State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Varun Vasudeva vs Unitech Ltd. on 15 May, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017
Date of Institution : 05.05.2017
Date of Reserve : 03.05.2018
Date of Decision : 15.05.2018
1. Varun Vasudeva son of Sh.Prem Kumar Vasudeva,
2. Prem Kumar Vasudeva
Both resident of V.P.O. Nasrala, Hoshiarpur, (Pb.)-146022
....Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Unitech Ltd., 6, Community Center, Saket, New Delhi,
through its Representative.
2. M/s Unitech Ltd., SCO No.189, 190, 191, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh, through its Representative.
3. M/s Alice Developers Pvt. Ltd., at Basement, 6, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through its Director-Sanjeev
Hingorani.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the complainants : Sh.Harsh Nagra, Advocate
For opposite parties No.1&2 : Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate
For opposite parties No.3 : Ms. Kshitija Mittal, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that originally Sh.Umesh Kumar Sharma was allotted the flat in the project Uniworld City, Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 2 Mohali, floated by the opposite parties and he booked one flat No.0103, Block -A at Singleton Floors, Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali, for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,66,357/- and Buyer's agreement was executed between Umesh Kumar Sharma and opposite parties on 15.07.2010. The original allottee sold this flat to the complainant in the year 2013 and the agreement was endorsed by the opposite parties on 19.09.2012. It has been stated by the complainants that they bought the flat being a senior citizen and for medical treatment as he had to come Chandigarh every week from his original residence in District Hoshiarpur. The opposite parties vide letter dated 19.09.2012 had confirmed the receipt of Rs.4,78,686/- from the complainant and the remaining payments were to be made according to the stage of construction. The complainants in all had paid a sum of Rs.5,35,000/-. No further payment was raised by the opposite parties as they did not raise further construction and it was abandoned. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, this complaint has been filed by the complainants for refund of the amount Rs.5,35,000/- paid by the complainants to the opposite parties; pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the deposited amount; pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Op Nos. 1 & 2 in their written reply filed through their Legal Executive Mr. Lalit Gupta took the preliminary objections that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint as the demand of payment Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 3 was raised by their Gurgaon office, therefore, this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain this complaint; the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as the claim is less than Rs.20 lacs. The liability of opposite parties No.1 & 2 was not to construct the flats because there was an agreement between opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 and the construction was to be raised by opposite party No.3 and opposite parties No.1 & 2 were just confirming party; the complainants are investors who invested in the flat for resale purposes; he is re-allottee and purchased the unit only in the year 2012 and the possession was tentatively to be handed over by 15.07.2013. The complainants were very well aware that the project is delayed and still chose to purchase the said unit as they are investors only and that the dispute involved in it is not a consumer dispute. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 had assigned to opposite party No.3 the development rights of 33.2438 acres of land. It was further mentioned that on the part of the land approximately 8.17 acres, the developer shall construct the independent floors of plots of various sizes, each plot having three floors to be known as Singleton Floors. Opposite party No.3 was further authorized to use Unitech Trade Mark and Unitech Corporate Logo for various purposes such as promotional, marketing, advertisements, brochures, hoardings etc. On merits, it is a matter of record that the opposite parties marketed their project of Singleton Floors. Allotment letter dated 07.05.2010 was issued by the opposite parties on behalf of opposite party No.3 in favour of Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 4 Umesh Kumar Sharma. The original allottee has written a letter to substitute the names of the complainants and draft of Rs.56,750/- was attached alongwith it. The complainants have made the payment of Rs.4,78,686/-, which was initially credited in favour of the complainants at the time of transfer of the allotment of the plot. Thereafter, no payment was made. According to Clause 4(a)(i) of the Buyer's Agreement the developer was duty bound to give notice of possession to the complainants and clause 4(c) of the agreement provides that developer will be liable to pay compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month of the saleable area of the floor for the period of delay in offering the possession of the said floor beyond the period of 36 months. The complainants are not consumer as they purchased the multiple flats. Flat No.0159 in Plot No.B in Unihomes, Sector -107, Uniworld City, Mohali was purchased on 07.07.2010 by the complainant and the same is pending before the Chandigarh State Commission. The original allottee has paid a sum of Rs.4,78,686/- only. There is no deficiency in services or any unfair trade practice on the part of these opposite parties. At the end it was stated that there is no merit in the complaint, it be dismissed.
3. Opposite party No.3 in their separate written statement filed through its Authorised Agent Mr. Atamjeet Singh Virk took the preliminary objections that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction as the agreement was executed at New Delhi and all the transactions pertaining to the purchase of the flat had taken place at Delhi. As per Article 12.b of the Buyer's Agreement, Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 5 the parties mutually agreed that Courts at Mohali have the jurisdiction in all the matter arising out of and/or concerning the transaction; the complainants are investors but due to slump in the market or real estate, the complainants have filed this false and frivolous complaint for refund of the amount; the complainants had just deposited Rs. 4,78,686/- out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 24,66,357/- and that the interest demanded by the complainant is too exorbitant as it was agreed between the parties that in case of the refund, the complainants shall be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum. On merits, preliminary objections taken above were reiterated. It was further stated that the Ops had sincere intention and are making honest efforts to deliver the possession. They have all the required approvals of the project and they have applied for partial completion of the project vide letter dated 3.2.2016. Due to some unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the Ops, the delivery could not be effected within the agreed time. In case of delay, the complainants are entitled to penal charges @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of these Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of the complaint. Complainants in their evidence have tendered affidavit of Sh.Varun Vasudeva dated 04.04.2018 as Ex.C-A and documents Exs. C-1 to C-11. On the other hand, Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 have tendered affidavit of Lalit Gupta, Auth. Rep. as Ex. Op-1/A and documents Ex. OP-1/1 Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 6 to OP-1/3. Opposite party Nos. 3 has tendered affidavit of Atamjeet Singh Virk, Auth. Rep. as Ex. OP-3/A and resolution Ex. OP-3/1.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the averments in the complaint, written replies filed by Op Nos. 1&2 and 3, evidence and documents on the record.
6. Before going to the merits of the complaint, some preliminary objections have been taken by OP Nos. 1 & 2 and 3 in their respective written statements, which are required to be addressed.
7. They have taken the objection that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the buyer's agreement was executed at New Delhi and the demand notices of the payments were from their Gurgaon Office, therefore, no cause of action had arisen at Punjab to file this complaint. However, it is an admitted fact that the property is located at Mohali and according to Clause 12.b of the buyer's agreement, it was mutually agreed that the Courts at Mohali have the jurisdiction in all matters arising out of and/or concerning this transaction. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the complaint is more than Rs. 20 Lacs, therefore, the complaint could not be filed at District Forum, Mohali and Mohali falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and moreover the property in question is also located at Mohali within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, therefore, this Commission has the territorial Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 7 jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the opposite parties that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
8. It has been further stated that the dispute between the parties is not a 'consumer dispute'. According to Section 2(e) of the Act, consumer dispute has been defined, which reads as under:-
(e) "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint."
In this complaint allegations have been made by the complainants, which have not been denied by Op Nos. 1 & 2 and have stated that it was the duty of Op No. 3 to complete the project. Otherwise, in case the complainants have availed the services from opposite parties against consideration then they are consumers. The payments were made to opposite party No.1 as per the letter dated 19.09.2012 issued by opposite party No. 1 i.e. Exs.C-5, therefore, the amount paid by the complainants was received by opposite party No. 1. The services have been defined under Section 2(i)(o) of the Act, which includes construction having services also. Therefore, in case the opposite parties had undertaken to deliver the construction having services to the complainants i.e. to construct a flat for the complainants against payment and in case they have failed to do so, it is a 'consumer dispute' and we do not Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 8 agree with the plea raised by Opposite party No. 1&2 that the dispute between the parties is not a 'consumer dispute'.
9. It has been stated that the amount claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs, therefore, the Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, in view of the judgment reported in I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) titled as "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." the sale consideration of the flat is to be taken and not the amount claimed in the complaint and as per the agreement the total cost of the flat is Rs.24,66,357/- which exceeds Rs.20 lacs. This facts has not been repudiated by the counsel for the opposite parties. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
10. An objection was taken by the Opposite parties that the flat was booked by the complainants for speculative purposes, therefore, they do not come within the definition of the 'consumer' as after making payment of meager amount i.e. Rs. 4,78,686/-, they failed to make any further payment. It was stated that the complainants are re-allottee and had purchased the said unit on 19.09.2012. The complainants in their complaint have specifically stated that they had booked the flat for residential purposes. It has not been proved on the record by the counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant has any other residential property in City Chandigarh/Mohali. Mere booking of another flat is not sufficient to say that it was booked only for re-sale purposes. He Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 9 has not placed on the record any document showing that they had been trading in real estate. Therefore, Ops failed to prove that complainants are involved in trading business in real estate. The Hon'ble National Commission has observed that till the opposite party proves that the complainant is trading in real estate, the booking made by the complainant cannot be said to be for speculative purposes. A reference can be given to the judgment 2017(3) CLT 459 "Pranab Basak versus Suhas Chatterjee". In that case, two flats were booked by the complainant and a plea was taken that the complainant had booked these flats for investment purposes. It was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that unless it is established that the complainant is dealing in sale and purchase or his real intention in booking the flat was to sell the same on profit, on appreciation of the value of the real estate. No such evidence has been brought on the record by the Ops. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the Ops that the complainants are not consumer.
11. An another objection has been taken that the flat No.0159 Block-B in Unihomes, Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali was also booked by the complainant with the opposite parties. Therefore, they are just investors. Merely booking of two flats is not sufficient to say that the flat was booked for speculative purposes till the opposite parties proved that the complainants are trading into real estate business. It cannot be said that the flat was booked for speculative purposes. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment reported in II (2017) CPJ 25 (NC) Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 10 "Dr.Poonam Aggarwal Versus Gujral Associates & Anr.", wherein it was observed that unless there is evidence on record that complainant was engaged in business of selling and purchasing of properties on regular basis, it would not be proper to classify such acquisition as commercial activity merely on the basis of number of units booked by such person. Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence on record that complainants are engaged in the business of sale and purchase of properties, no findings can be recorded that the complainants had booked the flat for commercial purposes. Accordingly, this point is determined against the opposite parties.
12. Originally, the flat was booked by one Umesh Kumar Sharma and allotment letter was issued on 07.05.2010 (Ex.C-1) and Flat No.0103, in Block A in Singleton Floors, Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali was allotted to Umesh Kumar Sharma for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,66,357.00. The payment schedule is Ex.C-2. The first two payments were to be made within three months from the date of registration and other payments were to be made under Construction Link Payment Plan. The opposite parties had issued a letter dated 19.09.2012 (Ex.C-5), vide which it was stated that Umesh Kumar Sharma had deposited a sum of Rs.4,78,686/-. An agreement to sell was issued in favour of Umesh Kumar Sharma, which was endorsed by the opposite parties in favour of complainants. On 19.09.2012, an endorsement letter is given alongwith agreement to sell dated 15.07.2010 (Ex.C-
6). After 19.09.2012, one payment deposited by the complainant Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 11 has not been referred and no receipt has been placed on the record that after this payment another payment was made by the complainants, therefore, on the basis of payment receipts from the complainant the complainants have paid Rs.4,78,686/- and not Rs.5,35,000/- as referred by the complainants in the complaint.
13. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties launched their project. The complainants had applied for an apartment/flat in their project Uni Homes, Sector 107, Mohali. Buyer agreement is Ex. C-6 and flat value is Rs. 24,66,357/-. As per the payment plan referred above, first two installments were to be made by the complainants as per the dates fixed by the Ops and these have been paid by the complainants. Till date total amount of Rs. 4,78,686/- have been paid to the Ops. The next payments were to be made as per the stage of the construction but no notice was received from the Ops that the construction was started and/or Ops demanded any payment from the complainants. They stated that they are ready to make any payment in case the construction of the project would have been started by the Ops. Ops failed to place on the record any document vide which the complainants were intimated with regard to stage of the construction and delivery of possession, therefore, with regard to the payment, there is no default on the part of complainants. As per Clause 4.a(i), the possession of the floor was to be given within a period of 36 months from the date of signing the agreement. The date of agreement is 15.07.2010 and by 15.07.2013, the possession of the floor was to be handed over to the complainants but Ops failed to Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 12 raise the construction and hand over the possession to the complainants. In case the Ops failed to deliver the possession of the flat within the agreed period, it amounts to deficiency in service and the complainants have a right to withdraw from the scheme. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as II (2014) CPJ 131 "PUDA versus Kanwalpreet Singh" that in case there is delay in handing over the possession, it amounts to deficiency in service and refund order can be passed. A reference has also been made to I (2017) CPJ 513 (NC) "Neha Suri versus Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd." In that case, the possession of the flat was not given as agreed. It amounts to deficiency in service. Amount deposited alongwith interest was ordered to be refunded. Similar order was passed in I (2017) CPJ 113 "Vishal Issar v. Park Wood Developers Pvt. Ltd.". This Commission has already held in Consumer Complaint No. 164 of 2016 "Harmit Singh Arora versus M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited", decided on 2.2.2017 that in case possession of the apartment has not been given as agreed then it amounts to deficiency in service and that the complainants are not bound to pay further payments when the project is not coming at the site and refund alongwith interest order was ordered. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to right of the complainants for refund of the amount. Counsel for Ops No.1&2 was unable to rebut it.
14. Another plea has been taken by the counsel for the Ops that in case of refund, then according to Clause 2(e) of the Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 13 buyer's agreement, the earnest money can be forfeited. However, in this case, the complainants have not requested for cancellation of the agreement, rather on the basis of non-compliance of the terms of the agreement, not to hand over the possession of the floor within the stipulated period, the complainants have sought refund of the amount, which according to Clause 4(e) of the buyer's agreement, the Ops are required to refund this amount alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. So far as the preposition that in case of any default not to deliver the possession within the specified period, the complainants shall be entitled to penal charges @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month of the salable/super area of the floor. Whereas it has been contended by the counsel for the complainants that in case of late payment, the Ops are claiming interest @ 18%, according to Clause 2(c) of the agreement then similar treatment be given to the complainants. It is one sided agreement and in case of default on the part of complainants, they have to pay 18% interest whereas Ops are to pay just 3%. This question has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 427 of 2014 "Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd." decided on 8.6.2015 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed as under:-
"However, a term of a contract, in my view will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary but was given under a sort of compulsion on account of the person giving consent being left with no other choice or if the said term amounts to an unfair trade practice. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 14 the term providing for payment of a nominal compensation such as Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area having become the order of the day in the contracts designed by big builders, a person seeking to buy an apartment is left with no option but to sign on the dotted lines since the rejection of such term by him would mean cancellation of the allotment. He further submitted that a person seeking to acquire a built up flat instead of purchasing a plot and then raising construction on it, therefore, is not in a position to protest resist the inclusion of such a term in the Buyer's Agreement, and has to rely upon the reputation of the builder, particularly if he is a big builder such as Unitech Ltd. He also submitted that the format of the Buyer's Agreement is never shown to the purchasers at the time of booking the apartment and if he refuses to sign the Buyer's Agreement on the format provided by the builder, not only will he lose the booking, even the booking amount/earnest money paid by him will be forfeited by the builder. I find merit in the above referred submissions of the learned counsel. A person who, for one reason or the other, either cannot or does not want to buy a plot and raise construction of his own, has to necessarily go in for purchase of the built up flat. It is only natural and logical for him to look for an apartment in a project being developed by a big builder such as the opposite party in these complaints. Since the contracts of all the big builders contain a term for payment of a specified sum as compensation in the event of default on the part of the builder in handing over possession of the flat to the buyer and the flat compensation offered by all big builders is almost a nominal compensation being less than 25% of the estimated cost of construction per month, the flat buyer is left with no option but to sign the Buyer's Agreement in the format provided by the builder. No sensible person will volunteer to accept compensation constituting about 2-3% of his investment in case of delay on the part of the contractor, when he is made to pay 18% compound interest if there is delay on his part in making payment.
It can hardly be disputed that a term of this nature is wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The builder charges compound Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 15 interest @ 18% per annum in the event of the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to him but seeks to pay less than 3% per annum of the capital investment, in case he does not honour his part of the contract by defaulting in giving timely possession of the flat to the buyer. Such a term in the Buyer's Agreement also encourages the builder to divert the funds collected by him for one project, to another project being undertaken by him. He thus, is able to finance a new project at the cost of the buyers of the existing project and that too at a very low cost of finance. If the builder is to take loan from Banks or Financial Institutions, it will have to pay the interest which the Banks and Financial Institutions charge on term loan or cash credit facilities etc. The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation which the builder would pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this very project. This gives credence to the allegation of the complainants that their money has been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r) (1) of the Act that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices enumerated in Section 2(r) (1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be evident from the use of word "including" before the words "any of the following practices".
The same view was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 347 of 2014, "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd." decided on 14.8.2015. A reference has also been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K.A. Nagmani Vs. Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board", C.A. No. Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 16 6730-6731, decided on 19.9.2012. In that case, the District Forum has allowed interest @ 12% p.a. and its appeal was dismissed by the State Commission as well as the Hon'ble National Commission and after relying upon the judgment of "Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh", (2004) 5 SCC 65, the interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount was allowed alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Against the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd.", C.C. No. 347 of 2014 (supra), Op preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 35562 of 2015, decided on 11.12.2015 and passed the order as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We do not see any cogent reason to entertain the appeal. The judgment does not warrant any interference.
The Civil Appeal is dismissed."
15. It was further observed by the Hon'ble National Commission in another judgment 2017(3) CLT 520 (NC) "Ankur Goswami versus Supertech and another" that this clause in the allotment letter would be applied to the case where allottee is seeking possession of the flat and where allottee is not seeking refund of the amount. However, in the present case, the allottees are seeking the refund, therefore, the penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. will not be applicable. Further under Rule 17 i.e. Rate of Interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement of Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 17 Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, it has been provided as under:-
"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."
In the above rule, it has been observed to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Therefore, Ops cannot make their own rules with regard to the interest in case of refund. The agreement should be in consonance with the rules framed under the PAPRA, therefore, we are of the opinion that in case of refund, the complainants shall be entitled to refund alongwith interest @ 12%. With regard to the preposition raised by the counsel for Op Nos. 1 & 2 that the project was to be developed by Op No. 3, they are just confirming party and very limited role but the payment confirmation letter Ex. C-5 shows that the payments were received by Op No. 1. Therefore, once Op No. 1 has received the payments, then Op No. 1 cannot take a plea that there is no liability even if the project was to be developed by Op No. 3 as per authorization given by Op No. 1. When payments were received by Op No. 1, then both the Ops are vicariously liable to deliver the flat within the agreed time and in case possession has not been delivered then Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 18 the complainants are entitled to the refund. Therefore, both Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.
16. In number of similar type of complaints, we have allowed the interest @ 12% p.a. i.e. Consumer Complaint No. 386 of 2016 "Meenakshi Puri versus Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 28.11.2017 and 'Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 2017 "Lt. Gurnur Singh Mahiwal & Anr. Versus M/s Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 4.1.2018 and in C.C. No. 429 of 2017 "Harminder Singh Pannu Vs. Unitech & Anr.", decided on 4.4.2018. Therefore, to be just and reasonable, the complainants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% on the deposited amount.
17. Vide letter dated 19.09.2012 (Ex.C-5) it is proved that opposite parties received a sum of Rs.4,78,686/- from the complainant but the amount of Rs.56,750/- (Ex.C-8) has been paid to the opposite parties towards transfer fees which is not refundable, therefore, this amount cannot be refunded to the complainant.
18. No other point was argued by the counsel for the parties.
19. Sequel to the above, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay the amounts jointly and severally as under:-
(i) to refund a sum of Rs. 4,78,686/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the various dates of deposit till actual payment;
Consumer Complaint No. 330 of 2017 19
(ii) Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainants.
(iii) Ops pay Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above directions be complied by the Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Ops.
20. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
21. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER May 15, 2018.
parmod