National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bhagat Singh & Anr. vs M/S. Adharshila Towers (P) Ltd. & Anr. on 1 October, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 385 OF 2002 1. Bhagat Singh, S/o Sh.Rohtash Singh 2. Mrs. Manju Yadav, W/o Sh.Bhagat Singh Both C/o Mr.R.K.Yadav, D1/6, FF-2 DLF, Qutab Enclave-I, Gurgaon Through Sh.Subhash Yadav, Special Power of Attorney Complainants Versus 1. M/s. Adharshila Towers (P) Ltd. UGF-I, Indra Prakash 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Through its Managing Director 2. M/s. Ansals Properties & Industries Ltd. 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Opposite Parties Through its Managing Director BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Complainants : Mr. Sajjan Singh Yadav, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate, With Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 1st October, 2013 O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. There is a magic in that little word, home, it is a mystic circle and surrounds comforts and virtues, never known beyond its hollowed limits. However, the customers are exasperated by senseless delay made by the Builder of a colony.
2. The above said complaint was filed on 11.10.2002, by the complainants, namely, Sh.Bharat Singh and Smt.Manju Yadav, against M/s. Adharshila Towers (P) Ltd., OP No.1 and M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd, OP2, with the prayer that the Opposite parties should be directed to complete the construction on plot No.F-06, Type-II, measuring 160 sq.mts., in Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana and pay interest @ 24% p.a., w.e.f.
01.01.1999, on the amount paid by the complainants in the sum of Rs.25,19,656/- which was paid within time. It is further stated that the OPs have failed to complete the construction in time, on the said plot, sold to the complainants, on 01.01.1999 and they be directed to pay interest till the delivery of the possession of the constructed house. In the alternative, it was prayed that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.25,19,656/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from October, 1996 onwards as per payment made by the complainants to the OPs. The complainants have also claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs of the complaint.
3. The complainants are originally, Indians, but they reside in United Kingdom. Sh.D.N.Gupta, is the original purchaser of this plot, by virtue of an agreement, dated 23.11.1996, entered with M/s. Adharshila Towers (P) Ltd., OP1. Sh.D.N.Gupta was to make payment by installments. By a simultaneous agreement, dated 23.09.1996, Sh.D.N.Gupta, entered into another agreement, with M/s. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., OP2.
The total basic sale price was Rs.1,66,656/- which was to be paid by installments, starting from 01.10.1996 to 01.07.1998 and a sum of Rs.1,31,656/- was to be given at the time of possession.
He was required to pay a sum of Rs.23,33,344/- as the cost of construction for 2050 sq.ft., built-up area and the installments were to be paid from 01.10.1996 to 01.01.1999, and at the time of possession, a sum of Rs.1,16,344/- was to be paid.
4. Thereafter, the complainants, vide their letter dated 13.05.1997, agreed to purchase this plot from Sh.D.N.Gupta, after having accepted the terms and conditions of allotment.
The OPs 1 & 2 also gave the concurrence on the original agreement, dated 23.09.1996 and agreed to transfer the ownership and title with all rights of the said plot of land in favour of the present complainants. The complainants continued paying the installments, till 13.01.1999. The complainants paid the total amount of Rs.25,19,656/- . Consequently, as per the agreement, they became entitled to receive the possession as the entire amount had been paid. Complainant No.2, vide her letter dated 22.09.1999, requested the OP No.2 that under the above detailed circumstances, the possession should be delivered to the complainants. They came from United Kingdom to get the possession, but the same was not handed over to them. There is a clear cut case of negligence and the deficiency on the part of the OPs. OPs even did not care to respond to the request made by the complainants vide application dated 22.09.1999. However, they were assured subsequently, when they met them in September, 1999, that the property would be ready, latest by December, 1999. The possession was not given till 07.07.2001. The complainants moved an application dated 05.07.2001 addressed to OP2, requesting therein to return all their money, with interest, because the OPs had failed to handover the flat even after the elapse of two years, after receiving the entire amount. In August, 2002, the OPs refused to take steps for completion of the construction, for handing over the flat to them. In the circumstances, the present complaint was filed.
5. Both the OPs have filed a common written statement. At the time of filing the written statement, it was averred that prayer No.1 stands satisfied, as they are going to offer the possession of the said premises. Again, possession letters were in process of being issued. It may be mentioned here that possession of the flat was actually given to the complainants on 10.03.2010, as per this Commissions directions. This is an admitted fact that the premises were originally booked by one, Sh.D.N.Gupta, in June, 1996, who could not carry on with the same, due to financial constraints and transferred the same in favour of the complainants, in July, 1997. Sushant Lok-III Project comprises 200+acres of land and 5-6 years time which is a reasonable period of time for completion of a project of this magnitude. Colonisation is done in phased manner, which involves lot of obligations and responsibilities on the part of various instrumentalities of State. Despite the Opposite Parties having paid Rs.19.34 crores to HUDA, they have failed to discharge their duty by providing various amenities/ facilities and a Civil Writ Petition filed by OPs seeking directions to State/HUDA to discharge their responsibilities, is pending disposal before the Honble Punjab High Court. Again, the original buyer as well as the complainants were explicitly informed that completion of the contracted unit was depending on various circumstances, as the colony was in initial stage of development. The complainants got the transfer effected only thereafter, on their own volition. No firm date for possession was ever committed by the OPs. This can be borne out from the agreement which does not contain any date for completion or possession. The subject unit has been completed, within a reasonable time frame. The instant case is wholly misconceived, premature, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. The OPs never assured that the house would be handed over to the complainants by July-August, 1999. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The jurisdiction of this Commission has also been called into question. The complainants have attempted to avoid and wriggle out of the legally binding contract entered into between the parties. In the year 1997, there was a real estate boom, wherein the prices of real estate had increased, whereas, at present, the real estate market is going through a depressed phase and the prices have plummeted. The appropriate remedy for the complainants is to file a Suit for Specific Performance, before the Civil Court.
6. The complainants have come to the court with unclean hands and they are disentitled to any relief. The OPs have acted strictly in terms of the contract. The OPs got the plan of the contracted unit already sanctioned on 11.12.1998, and the construction was progressing in the phased manner, thereafter, which has now been completed at the time of filing of the written statement, which is dated 12.05.2003. No time for construction was fixed and no assurance was given to the complainants that the house will be ready by July-August, 1999, or latest, by December, 1999. Unilateral communications as referred by the complainants are of no consequence and the same, in no way, can precede the agreement, dated 23.09.1996.
7. Both the parties have led evidence by way of affidavit and have supported their respective cases. We have heard the counsel for the parties. It is argued on behalf of the Opposite parties that the complainant is a transferee. He purchased the premises from original allottee, Sh.D.N.Gupta. The possession of the unit in question was given to the complainants, in the year 2010. Consequently, this case has become infructuous. It is admitted that the plans with respect to the unit in question were sanctioned on 11.12.1998. The real estate market was going through a depressed phase. The offer of possession of the unit was made to the complainant in the year 2003. It was vehemently argued that the construction agreement dated 23.09.1996, copy of which has been placed on record, does not mention any fixed time for construction of the unit. On the contrary, its clauses, G, H & I, run as follows:-
g) No claim by way of damages or compensation, shall lie against the Builder, in case of delay in handing over the possession, on account of the said reasons or any other reasons, beyond the control of the Builder.
h) The Owner shall be entitled to the possession of the House, only after the amounts payable under this Agreement are paid to the Builder.
i) Upon taking possession of the House, the Owner shall have no claim against the Builder as to any item of work, quality of work, materials, installations, etc., in the said House or any other ground, whatsoever. Complaints, if any, are to be got removed before the delivery or possession to the Owner.
[EMPHSIS SUPPLIED]
8. It is contended that it was argued that under these circumstances, the duty cast on the Commission is to see what is the reasonable time because the unit was prepared in the year, 2003, therefore, the said offer was made within the reasonable time. Again, the complainants are benefited and enjoined for terms of huge escalation of the cost of the unit in question and they are not entitled to any interest or compensation. The complainants have filed photos of the house in question. From outside appearance, it appears that the same were ready. The offer of possession was given on 07.11.2003. The said letter runs as follows:-
Ref: No.ORIENTAL/B0004/2003 Date : 07/11/2003 Bhagat Singh C/o Mr.R.K. Yadav D1/6 FF-02, DLF Qutab Enclave I, Gurgaon Sub : E006 in Oriental Homes (SL-III) offer of possession.
Dear Sir/Madam,
1. We are pleased to inform you that the construction of the aforesaid house had booked is complete. The possession of the house can now be handed over to you after registration of the sale deed of the plot on which your house is built.
2. An up-to-date statement of account.
3. Further, we request you to forward a set of two passport size photographs of your goodself. The same is required for the purpose of executing the sale deed. You may please note that stamp duty charges as indicated in Annexure-I are as prevailing on date. If there is any upward revision in such charges, the same will be to your account.
4. There have been escalations in construction costs calculated on the basis of averaging the increase in the CPWD cost Index.
(Computed for 3 years from the date of booking).
5. As per the terms of the plot Buyers Agreement, an interest free deposit @ Rs.30/- per sq.mt. of the plot area is to be made at the time of offer possession as security towards timely payment of operation charges.
6. All the outstanding dues are subject to re-conciliation and we request you to remit the same within 15 days of the issue of this letter to enable us to execute the sale deed in respect of the plot and to handover possession of the house to you.
Sd/-
For Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.
9. It is explained that as per the prevailing practice, once the OPs apply for Occupation Certificate with the statutory authorities, they issue letters of Offer of Possession to the allottees, transferees. The occupancy certificate was also received on 19.11.2003. The Complainants unnecessarily asked for removal of escalation amount though the same was specifically agreed to in the construction agreement as is clear from the complainant. Clause f of the construction agreement, runs as follows:
f) i) Construction cost may show escalation. The rate per sq.ft. of the saleable space fixed above has been based on costs as on 01.07.1996. This, however, shall stand enhanced if the cost of construction increases.
The increase in cost of construction shall be calculated on the basis of the proportionate increase in the building cost indices for Delhi as followed by the CPWD from time to time. The cost of construction being a part of the sale price, will be calculated by the following equation:-
Final sale price :
Sale price per square feet as recorded above PLUS the following per square feet:
Rs. [650 x { Cost index on the date of completion) 1} ] Cost index on 01.07.1996
ii) The cost index will be as applicable to the plinth area for Delhi and as followed/laid down by CPWD from time to time. The decision of the Builders on the increased cost of construction shall be binding and final. The increased incidence may be charged and recovered by the Builder from the Buyer in one or more installments or separately. This clause shall apply for escalation and nothing contained herein entitle any reduction. There will be no liability to render accounts.
iii) The applicable cost index to any particular date shall be arrived at by averaging the cost indices available.
iv) For this clause, the expression Date of Completion means the date when the Builder would submit application to the concerned authority for issuance of completion certificate.
10. During the pendency of this case, the complainants filed an application seeking a direction against the OPs to deliver possession of the unit.
The OPs gave their consent and even refunded 50% of the amount due to the complainants towards interest for delayed payment. This Commission directed that possession be handed over on 10.03.2010 and the said order was complied with by the OPs. The complaint regarding alleged defects was frivolous. No evidence was led.
11. The counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the following authorities. In Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711, it was held :-
12. The Commission has neither referred to the relevant facts nor drawn proper inferences. There is no basis for the finding that Bangalore Development Authority had agreed to deliver the houses by December, 1986 or the finding that no reason was shown for the delay in delivery. The allotment of 15 HIG houses identified by house numbers was only by resolution dated 16.01.1987 and communicated to the respondent on 27.05.1987. The payment was only on 15.05.1989. Delivery could not, therefore, obviously be by the end of December, 1986.l If reasonable period for construction is to be reckoned as two years (as assumed by the Commission), then the question of delay would be arise only after 15.05.1991. The Commission also assumed that mere delay automatically meant deficiency in service and in all such cases, the allottee will be entitled to interest at 18% per annum, from the date of payment, till date of delivery by relying on its decision in HUDA vs. Darsh Kumar. The decision of the Commission in HUDA Vs. Darsh Kumar was held to be unsustainable by this Court, on appeal in HUDA Vs. Darsh Kumar. This Court held that there cannot be uniform award of interest @ 18% per annum in all cases and that in cases of complaints of deficiency in service by a development authority relating to allotment of plots/flats, the principles laid down in Balbir Singh should be applied. Therefore, the decision of the Commission under appeal, based on its earlier decision in Darsh Kuamr, cannot be sustained.
12. In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, it was held :-
8.
However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e., a recompense for the loss or injury. It, therefore, necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on the basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.
24. We clarify that in all cases, where interest has already been paid @ 18% irrespective of the above order, the authority will not be entitled to call upon the party to refund the amount which has already been paid.
13. Lastly, the counsel for the complainant invited our attention towards HUDA Vs. Raje Ram, (2008) 17 SCC 407, the relevant paras of which run, as follows :-
16. The respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees.
They are reallottees to whom reallotment was made by the appellant in the years 1994, 1997 and 1996, respectively. They were aware, when the plots were reallotted to them, that there was delay (either in forming the laying itself or delay in delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment, etc).
In spite of it, they took reallotment. Their cases cannot be compared to the cases of the original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more, for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay.
17. The appellant offered possession to the respondents (the re-allottees) and they took possession of the respective plots on 27.06.2002, 21.03.2000 and 13.09.1999, respectively. They approached the District Forum in 1997, within a short period from the dates of re-allotment in their favour. They had not paid the full price when they approached the District Forum.
14. We find force in the arguments of the OPs, in a measure. The above said authorities hardly dovetail with the facts of this case. Facts are stubborn things. Certain harsh realties cannot be glossed over. It must be borne in mind that as per the agreement, clauses 18 and (h) of the agreement, it was clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentioned that after the making the entire payment, the possession would be handed over immediately. This is an indisputable fact that the complainants made the payment of entire installments. OPs were to obtain sanction for floating the instant Scheme, in the year 1996 itself.
However, the record reveals that OPs obtained the sanction on 11.12.1998. This fact is of infinite importance. From the very start, the OPs wanted to delay the construction of the said house. OPs received the letters dated 22.09.1999 and 05.07.2001. It may mentioned here that letter dated 22.09.1999 was received by the OPs, under their stamp, which runs, as follows:-
To The Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd 115, Ansal Bhavan, K.G.Marg, New Delhi.
Sub: For possession of Oriental Homes F-06, in Sushant Lok III, Gurgaon.
Sir, We have booked the above mentioned property under the 3-years self-financing scheme. We have also deposited all the required installments due till January, 1999. As per the terms of agreement, with your company, the above property was due for possession in July-August, 1999.
Keeping in mind the time to take over the possession, we had to come all the way from U.K. We would like to take the possession of the above mentioned property at the earliest possible date.
Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(MANJU YADAV) W/o Mr.Bhagat Singh D/1/6, DLF, Qutab Enclave Phase-I, Gurgaon Dt. 22nd Sept, 1999 Recd. Stamp by OPs Sd/-
22/09/1999.
15. It appears that OPs have not come to the Commission with clean hands. The contention raised by the OPs is that they have offered the house on 07.12.2003, which appears to be an eye-wash and guileful act.
16. The complainants wrote a letter to the OPs, on 28.12.2003, annexing a detailed report prepared by M/s. Rao & Associates in regard to various defects in the construction raised by OPs. The OPs were further requested to remove the defects and handover the possession of the house, free from all defects. According to the complainants, possession of completely constructed house was not handed over to the complainants, till the filing of the written statement. The complainants sent a letter to Sh.Kamaljit Singh, Manager (Sales), Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., on 28.12.2003. Its relevant para runs, as follows:-
Having acted upon the said communication, I visited the site/house in question and found that number of defect subsists in the said house. However, in order to substantiate these defects, an inspection was got conducted through Mr.Rao & Associates/ Engineers and approved Valuer of Govt. of India and Haryana Financial Corporation. The said Architect has conducted a thorough inspection of the house and found the defects on the following heads :-
1. Interior portion of the House :-
(i) Regarding change in the size of Drawing Rooms, Bed Rooms, Toilets and Kitchen, etc. The size of these rooms, toilets, kitchen, etc., are not as per specifications and as promised by your Industry. In fact, these are undersize.
2. Flooring:-
Floor is not found to be up to the mark and there is a variation in the white marble tiles as well gap in the skirting portion at many places.
3. Internal Finishing :-
Seepage on walls attempted to be removed gives an ugly look. Even plaster is not straight.
4. Kitchen :-
Neither Geyser provided nor taps with jalis.
5. Toilets :-
Toil work not upto the mark.
Even colour is not uniform and different shades tiles have been used giving an ugly look.
6. Woodwork :-
Front doors are not straight. There is a gap in the doors and even bidding is broken at different places. Jali panels are not provided.
7. Stair cases :-
The steps are not constructed on equal distance.
There is a variance in the distance of each stair which may lead to functional problem for ever.
8. Electrical fittings:-
Fixation of switches are not straight.
The said letter further states :-
Lastly, but not the least, in the statement of account, as forwarded by you, an amount of Rs.73,115/- has been added in my account under the Head of Escalation in construction cost. It is indeed regretted to remind you that I have already deposited my outstanding amount in the stipulated period and it was well expected as promised by you, that the possession of the said house shall be delivered in the year 1999, but the same was ready for possession and it is only through letter under reference that an attempt has been made to handover the possession of the said flat but still with certain existing defects. Thus, the amount shown under the Escalation Head are unwarranted and need to be removed.
I am indeed in need of the said house as I am loosing financially as well as socially. Despite having invested such huge amount, I am without any shelter. I would, therefore, request that the amount shown in Escalation Head be removed and I be handed over possession of the said house by removing the defects as pointed out by the Architect, along with an interest @ 24% per annum, w.e.f. 01.01.1999, on the paid amount and damages incurred, till to-date.
However, in order to reflect the details of defects as pointed out, I am submitting you a copy of inspection report, as prepared by the Rao & Associates, Architect.
Yours sincerely, Sd/-, 28.12.2003 (BHAGAT SINGH) Through Special Power of Attorney, Sh. Subhash Yadv.
[[
17. The above said letter was replied by Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd, on 10.01.2004, which runs, as follows:-
Ref No.APIL/E-06/OV/SL-III/3160, 10th Jan, 2004 Mr.Bhagat Singh C/o. Sh.R.K.Yadav DI/6FF-02, DLF Qutub Enclave-I Gurgaon (Through Special Power of Attorney, Sh.Subhash Yadav) Sub : Unit No.E-06 in Oriental Homes, Sushant Lok-III Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your letter dated 28th Dec, 2003, in response to our offer of possession dated 07.11.2003.
We find the inspection report of your Architect (M/s.
Rao & Associates) vague and far-fetched. Had you associated us also at the time of alleged inspection, things could have stood clarified. However, without admitting the contents of your Architects alleged report, we would like to submit as under:-
Interior portion of the house:-
With regard to rooms being undersize, kindly note all the wall area are excluded in the dimension/area mentioned by you.
In fact, final measurement are done at the time of possession. Area statement, if so required, can be provided to you.
Flooring :-
Grinding & polishing has not been done yet which is done at the time of physical possession only.
Internal finishing :-
Too subjective.
Kitchen :-
Geyser and taps with jails are however installed at the time of physical possession only.
Toilet :-
Too subjective.
Woodwork :-
Is to be given final touches at the time of physical possession.
Staircases :-
Vague Electrical fittings :-
Too subjective. Shall be attended at the time of physical possession.
We would like to add that in no circumstances, any delay is attributable to us. At no point of time, possession was ever promised to be delivered in the year 1999 as alleged. Your house has been constructed and completed in complete conformity with the contract and any demand towards interest or damages is not only arbitrary but totally unjustified and unfair. There is nothing wrong in the amount shown under the escalation head.
However, without prejudice to above, we are open to a discussion on all your genuine grievances and we would request you to get in touch with the undersigned at the earliest. Earlier also, vide our communication dated 10th Dec, 2003, we had respected you to meet us for a discussion.
We also assure you to take all corrective measures to remove the defects, if some truth is found in the alleged inspection report of your architect.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Ansal Properties Industries Ltd.
Sd/-
(KAMALJIT SINGH) MANAGER SALES.
18. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainants. It is thus clear that the intention of the OPs, from the very beginning, was to delay the construction and then charge hefty amounts on the protest of Escalation Costs, regardless of the fact that whether the allottees are at fault or not. It is clear that the possession was not given to the complainants/allottees after the payment of entire amount.
The complainant went to the office of the OPs on 24.03.2004, but nothing came out of the said meeting.
19. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the complainants that they deposited an installment with some delay and the OPs had charged penal interest @ 24% p.a. Consequently, the OPs are liable to pay the said penal interest, as per the law laid down in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi, 6 SCC 406.
20. It is also clear that the complainants came from England to get the possession, but the possession was not delivered to them.
21. It is also note-worthy that during the pendency of this case, no offer was made to the complainants to have the house, immediately. OPs should have made the offer immediately after filing of this complaint. It must be borne in mind that the house was to be allotted immediately after payment of the entire amount, means that it should be given within three to six months, but in this case, the case was delayed by more than ten years.
22. In the latest view taken by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Shivalik Vihar Sites P.Ltd. & Ors., Vs. Darshan Singh, I (2013) CPJ 15 (SC), it was held :-
9. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the petitioners part is based on correct analysis of the facts and documents produced by the parties and the State Commission rightly refused to interfere with the same. The direction given by the District Forum for refund of the amount deposited by the respondents was also correct and the State Commission and the National Commission did not commit any error by approving the same.
10. We are further of the view that the National Commission has been more than lenient because small amount of costs of Rs.50,000/- was imposed while dismissing the revision filed in the execution matters. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are directed to pay the entire amount due to the respondents within a period of one month from today and submit a report to this effect within next two weeks.
23. In Dr.Poornima Advani & Ors., Vs. India Builders Corporation, decided on 20.12.2002, by this Commission, it was held :-
In Sovintorg (India) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi, II (1999) CPJ 1 SC = (1996) 6 SCC 406, the Honble Supreme Court has held payment of interest on deposited amount on equitable grounds. In GDA Vs. Union of India, Honble Supreme Court has upheld grant of interest on equitable grounds even when there is no provision to this effect in the agreement. In HUDA Vs. Darsh Kumar & ORs., I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC) (RP No. 1187 of 1998), we have granted interest @ 18% per annum to cover interest, cost escalation and compensation. Following our own order (supra), we direct the OPs to pay the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment which must be made within 8 weeks of the order. This complaint is allowed with cost of litigation fixed at Rs.5,000/- payable by the OPs to the complainant which would also be paid within eight weeks of this order.
24. Are the consumers concerned with the completion of a project of this magnitude, or with the Writ pending before the Honble High Court.
The Builder must start the project after satisfying that the land is unencumbered. Why to take the consumers, for a ride? The complainants stepped into the shoe of the original owner. Same terms and conditions of the agreement will be applicable. The authority of Raje Ram (supra), will have no application. The entire price was paid on 13.01.1999, but the possession of the premises was handed over on 10.03.2010, that, too, at the direction given by this Commission.
It is an indisputable fact that even after the offer was made in the year 2003, the house was still incomplete. The complainants had to spend huge amount by coming from U.K., to receive the possession of the house.
25. It is difficult to fathom as to why did the Opposite parties adopt a Fabian policy. After evaluating the pros and cons of the facts and circumstances of this case, we hereby order that the opposite parties would pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the entire amount paid, i.e. Rs.25,19,656/-, from 13.01.2000, i.e. one years relaxation, till 10.03.2010, within 90 days from the date of order, else it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till realisation.
26. We also grant compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for litigation charges, mental agony, harassment, anger, anguish, frustration and sadness. The entire amount of interest as well as compensation be paid by the Opposite parties, within 90 days from the date of the order, or else, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a., till its realization.
27. The complaint case stands disposed of, in above said terms.
...
(J. M. MALIK,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ....
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER dd/25