State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anirudh Sood vs M/S Barnala Builders & Property ... on 23 April, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014
Date of institution : 14.05.2014
Date of decision : 23.04.2015
Anirudh Sood S/o Sh. Naveen Sood, R/o H.No.D-103, Jagdambe
Apartments, C 58/25, Sector-62 Noida (U.P.).
...Complainant
Versus
M/s Barnala Builders & Property Consultants, SCO No.1, opposite
Yes Bank, Zirakpur-Patiala Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar
(Mohali), Punjab, through its Partners.
...Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate For the opposite party : Shri Ambrish Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
Complainant, Anirudh Sood, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of following directions to the opposite party:-
i) to deliver the possession of the Apartment/Flat as per the specifications shown in the Brochure, Offer Letter dated 28.05.2011 and the Sample Flat shown to him;Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 2
ii) to refund the service tax amounting to Rs.1,10,374/-, Rs.70,000/- paid on 15.01.2013 and Rs.40,374/- paid on 31.01.2013;
iii) not to demand any further service tax from him;
iv) not to demand Rs.3,96,219/-, towards interest and Rs.1 lac, towards maintenance, being illegal and not maintainable, as the possession of the flat had still not been delivered;
v) not to charge Rs.1 lac, towards parking charges, as such parking area is to be provided to the flat owner/allottee and not to be sold; and
vi) to pay Rs.5 lacs, as compensation, as the possession of the flat has not been delivered to him as per the stipulated date, i.e. 30.12.2012 He alleged, in his complaint, that the opposite party advertised its project and claimed high degree of technical excellence, better concepts of quality construction, innovative designs with modern amenities, maintaining the highest standards, special commitment towards the customers etc. Believing those commitments, he approached it for allotment of Apartment/Flat in Maya Garden, Phase-III, VIP Road, Zirakpur. He was allotted Apartment/Flat No.201 on the 2nd Floor in Block 3-A and was assured that the same would be in conformity with the Brochure, Sample Flat and specifications, which were duly shown to him by its officials. He paid Rs.1,00,000/-, as the booking amount and opted Plan-A, as payment mode. The opposite party assured him that it would be sending demand letters as per the "Construction Linked Progress". The same was done by it and different payments were made by him, in response to the demand letters, from time to time. As per the allotment letter dated 28.05.2011, he was to pay Rs.37,60,000/-, Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 3 which included the parking charges amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. In fact, those parking charges were levied illegally and the opposite party was not entitled to it as per the law. That amount deserves to be deducted/reduced from the total price of the flat. He has already paid Rs.36,82,374/- and, as such, he has paid the total price of the Flat (the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as parking charges is to be deducted from the said price). The opposite party failed to raise the construction and furnish the flat, as per the specifications laid down by it in the Brochure and the Offer Letter dated 28.05.2011. It had also assured that the windows would be wooden-framed, but the same are iron-framed and are not as per the specifications. He had been visiting the site during the construction and pointed out eleven shortcomings in the letter written by him to the opposite party and the telephone calls made to it. During his visit on 22.11.2011, he was informed by the opposite party that the payments made by him, in respect of the flat, were in time and there was no delay on his part. The last demand letter dated 15.04.2012 was received by him on 21.04.2012 and no demand of interest was raised therein. The opposite party failed to hand over the possession of the flat by the stipulated date, i.e. 30.12.2012, rendering itself liable for the payment of compensation. As per Clause-18 of the Agreement executed between them, all kinds of dues/charges and levies etc., to be imposed by the Government/Municipal Authorities/any other authority, before the date of delivery of possession, were to be borne by the opposite party, but illegally and under pressure, it charged Rs.70,000/- from him as such on 15.01.2013 and Rs.40,374/- on Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 4 31.01.2013. Further payment of Rs.5,810/- has been raised, vide demand notice dated 22.05.2013. It also illegally demanded amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, towards maintenance, when admittedly the possession of the flat has not been delivered to him. Unless and until the possession thereof is delivered to him, no such demand on account of maintenance can be raised. The opposite party is required to complete the flat in conformity with the specifications, hand over the possession and only then, it can claim the maintenance charges. When it failed to rectify the wrongs despite repeated requests and visits, he served legal notice dated 09.08.2013, calling upon it to deliver the possession of the flat in terms of the specifications provided in the Brochure, Offer Letter dated 28.05.2011 and the Sample Flat shown to him; after the removal of the said shortcomings. It was also called upon to refund the sum of Rs.1,10,374/- received by it as service tax and not to demand Rs.3,96,219/-, towards interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards maintenance. As per the agreement, he is entitled to compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month; which comes to Rs.8,475/- per month with effect from 01.01.2013. He also pleaded that in case there is any delay on the part of the LIC Housing Finance Limited, with whom the Tripartite Agreement was entered into, he cannot be blamed for the same and cannot be burdened with any interest.
2. The opposite party filed detailed written reply, in which it admitted that the flat in dispute was so allotted to the complainant and that a sum of Rs.36,82,374/- has already been deposited towards the price of that flat. It also admitted the demand of the Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 5 interest on delayed payments, service tax and maintenance charges was made from the complainant and that there was delay in delivering the possession of the flat. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that on 12.12.2010, joint application for the allotment of the flat was made by complainant and one Mr. Virender Singh Rana and the flat was allotted, in view of that joint application, on 29.12.2010 in their names. At the time of booking, the cost of the flat was fixed as Rs.40,86,957/- and as the complainant and his co-applicant adopted Payment Plan-A, they were given discount of 8% and they were required to deposit 95% of the cost of the flat, within 45 days. After making the deduction of the said discount, the final cost was fixed as Rs.37,60,000/-; out of which a sum of Rs.35,72,000/- was required to be deposited on 26.01.2011, but till that date only a sum of Rs.5,64,000/- was deposited. It was in the month of May, 2011 that the co-allottee submitted written request for the change of allotment letter from joint name to the name of the complainant; as he was not in a position to retain the allotment of the flat. Accordingly, it issued fresh allotment letter on 28.05.2011 in the name of the complainant. All these facts have been concealed by the complainant. It never assured the complainant to send the demand letters in accordance with Construction Linked Plan-B, as he booked the flat under Plan-A. No demand letter was ever sent by it to the complainant, in accordance with the Construction Linked Plan. As he was a defaulter and failed to make the payment of the price of the flat, so letters/reminders were sent to him from time to time. On the date of Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 6 filing of the written reply, a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- was due towards the cost of the flat, Rs.5,810/- towards the service tax, Rs.1,00,000/- towards the maintenance charges and Rs.4,62,567/- towards interest. The sum of Rs.1,10,374/- was the service tax, which was due to the Government of India. It was ready to deliver the possession to the complainant, but he himself had not come forward to take the possession thereof by clearing the dues by 30.12.2012. In fact, in Clause-18 of the agreement, as a result of printing error, the word "First Party" was printed wrongly and, in fact, it was "Second Party". The language of that clause makes it clear that it was the duty and liability of the "Second Party" and not of the "First Party" to pay all the dues, charges, levies etc. that may be imposed by the Government, Municipal Committee or any other authority on the housing project. A public notice was issued in the English newspaper "Indian Express" and Punjabi newspaper "Jagbani" dated 11.07.2013, to clarify all these facts to the general public, customers and the concerned persons. The complainant cannot take benefit of the printing error in the agreement. It is very much clear from the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 that the service tax is leviable on "taxable service" only and not on "service provider" and that service provider is only means for deposit of the service tax to the credit of the Central Government. It is settled law that the service tax has to be paid by the "service recipient" and not by the "service provider". As the complainant himself had not come forward to take the possession of the flat, so he is not entitled to any such compensation for the delay, as claimed by him in the complaint. In fact, he was a Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 7 defaulter and failed to clear the cost of the flat and, as such, is liable to pay interest on the delayed payments @ 20% per annum and the interest calculated at that rate comes to Rs.4,62,567/- upto 20.09.2014. In fact, the complainant booked the costly flat, beyond his buying capacity, and was not in a position to pay the cost thereof. It was on his request that the Tripartite Agreement was executed between them and the LIC Housing Finance Limited, in order to help him and permit him to obtain the loan by mortgaging the flat. That Finance Company has been disbursing the loan amount only on the instructions of the complainant and he is liable for delay in payment by that Finance Company. He was required to clear all the dues within time. It is to maintain the project upto three years and it is the duty of the complainant and the other customers to pay the "One Time Maintenance Charges" for three years; which comes to Rs.1,00,000/-. It invited the complainant for table talks to resolve the dispute, but he did not show any interest and failed to come forward for the settlement of the dispute. He has raised the dispute regarding the settlement of accounts, which cannot be decided in the proceedings before this Commission in the summary manner. Similarly, the illegality of charging the interest or other charges is such a dispute, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Commission and only civil court is empowered to decide the same. The relief of the complainant regarding the refund of the parking charges, which were paid four years before the filing of the complaint, is time barred. The complaint is not maintainable and is also liable to be dismissed, on account of suppression of facts from Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 8 the Commission. The same has been filed with mala fide intention, with a motive to get undue advantage. The complainant has no cause of action to file the same. It prayed for the dismissal thereof, with heavy costs.
3. To prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13. On the other hand, the opposite party proved on record affidavit of Sandeep Bansal, Manager Ex.OP/A and the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15.
4. We have carefully gone through the averments of the parties, the evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have also heard learned counsel on their behalf.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that from the documents proved on the record, including the statement of account Ex.C-4, it stands proved that the complainant had deposited 95% of the total price of the flat, within the prescribed period. Therefore, the opposite party was not justified in projecting that there was delay in the payment of that amount or that it was entitled to the interest @ 20% on the delayed payments. This rate of interest is penal rate of interest and the opposite party was not justified in claiming the interest at that rate. No such interest was demanded by the opposite party, vide letter dated 15.04.2012 Ex.C-8 and, therefore, it could not have demanded that interest, vide letter dated 22.05.2013 Ex.C-9. Moreover, the Tripartite Agreement was executed between the parties and the LIC Housing Finance Limited, which was proved on the record, as Ex.C-10 and as per that Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 9 agreement, the demand, if any, was to be made to that Finance Company by the opposite party and that Finance Company was to deposit the amount accordingly. If there was any such default on the part of the Finance Company, the complainant cannot be made liable for the same. It also stands proved from the affidavit of the complainant and the documents proved on the record that the total price of the flat had already been paid, so the opposite party could not have raised the demand of Rs.1,88,000/-, as balance price, vide letter dated 22.05.2013. He further submitted that as per Clauses 13 and 18 of the Agreement Ex.C-3, the maintenance charges and the service tax was payable by the complainant only after the delivery of possession of the flat and before that, those charges were to be incurred by the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party could not have raised the demand of Rs.5,810/-, as the service tax and Rs.1,00,000/-, as the maintenance, vide letter of demand Ex.C-9, and it is bound to refund the amount of Rs.1,10,374/- received by it as service tax. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2544 of 2010 decided on 31.8.2010 (Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.), the opposite party could not have received any amount on account of parking charges and it is bound to refund the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- received by it as parking charges. In the last, he argued that as per the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant by the opposite party on or before 30.12.2012, but it failed to do so. Therefore, as per Clause-5 Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 10 of that agreement Ex.C-3, it is liable to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month for the period in default.
6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant has tried to conceal the actual facts from this Commission. Initially, he, along with one Virender Singh Rana, applied for the allotment of the flat by moving joint application Ex.OP-1 and it was in pursuance of that joint application that the flat was allotted in their joint names, vide allotment letter dated 29.12.2010 Ex.OP-2. It was only thereafter that the co-applicant opted out and on the request of the complainant, this flat was allotted in his name, vide allotment letter dated 28.05.2011 Ex.OP-4. When the flat was allotted in the names of the complainant and Virender Singh Rana, they had agreed to pay the price, as mentioned in the allotment letter Ex.OP-2 as per Plan-A, and 95% of the total price of the flat was to be deposited by them, within 45 days of booking. When the allotment was made in the exclusive name of the complainant, it was made clear that the said amount was payable within 45 days of the booking and the date of booking is to be taken from the date of the joint application. There was delay in the payment of the instalments as per Plan-A and it was on that account that the opposite party, by invoking Clause-17 of the agreement Ex.C-3, claimed the interest @ 20%. The complainant cannot make the LIC Housing Finance Limited liable for that delay, by invoking the Tripartite Agreement, as it is clear from the contents of that agreement itself that any delay on the part of that Finance Company was to be treated as delay on the part of the complainant Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 11 himself. When the demand was raised, vide letter dated 15.04.2012 Ex.C-8, there was no question of mentioning the interest, which had accrued on account of delayed payment. That interest was correctly calculated @ 20% as per the above said clause of the agreement and the same was claimed, vide letter dated 22.05.2013 Ex.C-9 and the complainant is bound to pay the same. Rs.1,88,000/- was 5% of the total price of the flat, which was payable at the time of possession and the same was correctly demanded, vide letter Ex.C-
9. The parking charges were payable and the complainant had agreed to pay the same, as is clear from the allotment letter and in fact, it is not Rs.1,00,000/- which was charged as such; as discount of 8% was given on that amount also. Public notice was given in the newspapers "Indian Express" and "Jagbani" Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-7, respectively, regarding the corrections made in the relevant clauses of the agreement and after those corrections were made by giving of the public notice, it was the complainant, who became liable to pay the service tax and the maintenance charges. No such amount was ever raised from him illegally and he is bound to pay the same. He is entitled to the possession of the flat, only after the payment of those amounts.
7. It is very much clear from the evidence produced by the opposite party that the complainant has tried to conceal the actual and true facts from this Commission. The opposite party proved on record the application dated 12.12.2010 Ex.OP-1. It is very much clear from that application that the complainant, along with Virender Singh Rana, had applied for the allotment of a flat in the project in Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 12 dispute, to the opposite party. Both of them had agreed to Down Payment Plan (Plan-A) and as per that Plan, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid at the time of booking i.e. 12.12.2010; 15% of the total price of the flat was payable within 10 days (22.12.2010) and 80% of the basic sale price plus car parking amount was to be paid within 45 days of the date of booking (27.01.2011). It was in pursuance of that joint application that allotment letter dated 29.12.2010 Ex.OP-2 was issued, vide which the flat in dispute was allotted in their joint names. They had agreed to Plan-A, which was incorporated in Annexure-I of that allotment letter. The opposite party also proved on record the letter, which was written by Virender Singh Rana, Ex.OP-3, in which he mentioned that he cannot retain the property in his name and requested for the deletion of his name from the allotment letter. The same was done and another allotment letter dated 28.05.2011 was issued in the exclusive name of the complainant and the same was proved on the record, as Ex.OP-4. Though, the fresh allotment letter was issued, but for all intents and purposes, it is to be taken that the flat was allotted to the complainant in view of the application Ex.OP- 1 made by himself and Virender Singh Rana. The date of booking shall remain as 22.12.2010 for all intents and purposes. It is very much clear from these allotment letters that the total value of the flat @ Rs.2,352.19P per sq.ft. was assessed at Rs.39,86,957/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was included therein, as parking charges. On the total value of Rs.40,86,957/-, a rebate of 8% was allowed as the complainant had opted for Plan-A; which was a Down Payment Plan. The net price of the flat was Rs.37,60,000/-, out of which, Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 13 Rs.1,00,000/- had already been given at the time of booking. 15% of the remaining price, i.e. Rs.4,68,250/- was payable within 10 days of the date of booking i.e. 22.12.2010 and 80% of the basic sale price i.e. Rs.30,08,000/- was payable within 45 days of the booking i.e. 27.01.2011.
8. Before taking up the point as to whether the payments were made in time, the question to be decided is whether the opposite party could have charged the amount as parking charges? Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The findings in that judgment were recorded keeping in view the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (in short, "MOFA"). The provisions of that Act are not applicable to the flats being constructed in the State of Punjab and it was made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10930 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2013 (DLF Limited v. Manmohan Lowe and others) that the said judgment is not applicable in view of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Management) Act, 2003. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the allegations of the complainant that the opposite party could not have charged any amount as parking charges over and above the price of the flat.
9. The complainant proved on record the statement of account Ex.C-4. Similarly, the opposite party proved on record that statement of account, pertaining to the complainant, as Ex.OP-5. Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 14 The different amounts, which were paid and the dates on which the same were paid, are mentioned in both the statements. Against the amount of Rs.4,68,250/-, which was payable on 22.12.2010, the complainant paid only Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.12.2010. The sum of Rs.1,64,000/- was paid on 01.03.2011. The sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 12.12.2010. Thus, there was delay in payment of first instalment of Rs.4,68,250/-. The amount of Rs.30,08,000/- was payable on or before 27.01.2011. However, no such amount was paid before that date. That amount was paid by way of number of instalments from 16.04.2011 to 31.01.2013. It has been wrongly alleged by the complainant that he was to make the payments as per the demand raised by the opposite party on Construction Linked Basis. He has not proved on record any such letter, vide which any such amount was demanded from him and it is very much clear from the evidence produced on the record that he had been paying the amounts on his own. For the first time, letter dated 15.04.2012 Ex.C- 8 was written by the opposite party to the complainant, raising the demand of Rs.6,12,000/-, on the ground that he paid Rs.29,60,000/- and the sum of Rs.6,12,000/- was due from him, as the balance amount; and that was a fact. It stands proved on record beyond any doubt that there was delay on the part of the complainant to make the payments towards the price of the flat, as agreed by him.
10. It cannot be made out from the Tripartite Agreement between the parties and the LIC House Finance Limited, Ex.C-10, that for any delay in the payment of the instalments, the Finance Company was to be made liable. No doubt, in Clause-1 of that Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 15 agreement, the Finance Company had agreed to make the payments to opposite party directly, as and when required by it, but it is also incorporated in that clause itself that in case of any delay in the payment of the instalments, the same was to be treated as default on the part of the complainant. Thus, the complainant is to be held liable for the delay in the payments and in case, he wants to make the Finance Company liable, he can seek his independent remedy.
11. According to the opposite party, the interest on the delayed payments was calculated as per Clause-17 of the agreement, @ 20% per annum. It may be said that it is penal rate of interest, but it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in (Punjab Urban Development Authority Vs. Rajinder Pal Singh) (2010) CTJ 1142 that the collection of penal interest in case of an applicant, who defaulted in payment of instalments, is justified. Counsel for the complainant could not point out at the time of arguments that the interest of Rs.3,96,210/-, as mentioned in the letter Ex.C-9, has not been correctly calculated by the opposite party @ 20% per annum on the delayed payments. Before seeking possession of the flat, he is bound to pay the interest at the said rate on the delayed payment and it cannot be held that the same is being demanded from him by the opposite party illegally.
12. Admittedly, the price of the flat was Rs.37,60,000/- and towards that amount, the complainant has only paid 95%, i.e. Rs.35,72,000/-. The balance amount is still due from him and that 5% of the total price was payable at the time of delivery of Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 16 possession and, as such, the sum of Rs.1,88,000/- has been correctly claimed by the opposite party, vide letter Ex.C-9.
13. The only other point in controversy, which remains to be decided is, whether the opposite party could have demanded the service charges and maintenance charges from the complainant? The learned counsel appearing on its behalf could not deny the fact that as per Clauses 13 and 18 of the agreement, Ex.C-3, those are payable by the opposite party, which has been described in that agreement as the "First Party", before the delivery of possession to the complainant and it is only after the delivery of possession that those charges are to be paid by him. In order to wriggle out of these clauses, the opposite party gave public notice in the newspapers "Indian Express" Ex.OP-6 and "Jagbani" Ex.OP-7, making corrections in these clauses, so that the "First Party" mentioned therein be read as the "Second Party" and vice versa. The opposite party could not have made such amendment/substitution in the agreement, by giving public notice. Any amendment or substitution could have been made only with the consent of the complainant, with whom the agreement was entered into. Till that agreement is legally and validly amended, the clauses thereof are to be read as such. As per the above said clauses, the service charges and maintenance charges were payable by the complainant only after the delivery of possession and till the delivery of possession, those were payable by the opposite party. Therefore, it could not have demanded, vide letter Ex.C-9, Rs.5,810/- as the service charges and Rs.1,00,000/-, as the maintenance charges. It was deposed by the complainant in Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 17 his affidavit Ex.C-A that the opposite party had already received Rs.1,10,374/- as service tax and out of that amount, Rs.70,000/- were deposited on 15.01.2013 and Rs.40,374/- on 31.01.2013. These amounts, having been illegally received by the opposite party, are liable to be refunded.
14. As per Clause-5 of the agreement Ex.C-3, the physical possession of the flat was to be handed over by the opposite party to the complainant on or before the execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.12.2012. Thus, the possession of the flat was required to be delivered by the opposite party to the complainant on or before 30.12.2012. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the same was not delivered to him by that date. The opposite party has not produced any evidence for proving that this possession was ever offered to the complainant and, if so, at what time? No doubt, in the letter dated 22.05.2013, Ex.C-9, a note was given that the flats are ready for possession, but the possession was never offered to the complainant. As per the allotment letter Ex.C-2/Ex.OP-4, the balance 5% of the price was payable on the completion of the project. If the flat was ready for delivery, the opposite party should have offered the possession at the time it demanded that balance 5% of the total sale price and the other charges. For this delay in the delivery of possession, as per Clause-5 of the agreement, it is liable to pay the charges @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month for the period of default. The complainant is entitled to that amount, as the compensation for the delay in delivery of possession.
Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014 18
15. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to deliver the possession of the flat in dispute to the complainant within one month of the payment of Rs.1,88,000/- plus Rs.3,96,210/-; after deducting therefrom the amount allowed as compensation for the delayed payment and refund of service charges. In case, the amount of that compensation and Rs.1,10,374/- comes more than the amount payable by the complainant, the opposite party shall pay the balance amount to the complainant at the time of delivery of possession and in that case, the possession is to be delivered and payment of excess amount is to be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, as the litigation expenses.
16. The arguments in this case were heard on 17.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER April 23, 2015 (Gurmeet S)