State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mridula Manu vs Lgcl Properties Pvt. Ltd. on 18 January, 2022
1 CC.No.31/2021
Date of Filing :19.04.2021
Date of Disposal :18.01.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
CC.No.31/2021
1. Mridula Manu
W/o Sanjith Kuttan
Aged about 38 years
2. Sanjith Kuttan
S/o M.Kuttan,
Aged about 38 years
Both R/at A-702,
Epitome Crowne,
Bilekahalli, Ranka Colony,
Bannerghatta Road,
BTM Layout,
Bengaluru-76. ... Complainant
(By Adv.Sri.B.K.Sampathkumar)
-Versus-
1. M/s.LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at No.12/1,
Rest House Road,
Bengaluru-01.
Rep by its Director
2 CC.No.31/2021
(By Adv.Sri.P.P.Hegde)
2. Axis Bank Ltd.,
Having its office at
Retail Assets Center,
No.19, 60 ft road,
Sahakaranagar,
Bengaluru-92.
Rep. by Branch Manager ..Opposite Parties
(By Adv.Sri.Jai.M.Patil)
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This complaint is filed U/s.47 of CPA 2019 by the Complainant No.1 & 2/husband & wife (Complainants) against OP.1/developer & OP.2/bank (Ops) and sought for directions as:
1. Direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.46,32,902/- paid by the Complainants along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 30.10.2017 till the date of receipt of the amount by the Complainants.
2. Direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.40,61,639/- paid by the Complainants to OP.2 towards bank loan pre-EMIs and EMIs and other charges in respect of loan a/c no.PHR056102916548 along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 25.01.2018 till the date of receipt of the amount by the Complainants.
3. Direct OP.1 to repay the balance outstanding loan amount availed from OP.2 by the Complainants as per 3 CC.No.31/2021 actual in respect of said loan a/c including the principal and interest components, directly to the said bank.
4. Direct OP.1 to refund to the Complainants along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI, any further sums paid by the Complainants to OP.2 towards the said bank loan account from this date onwards.
5. Direct OP.2 not to make any demand or request to the Complainants towards payment of the EMIs from the date of this complaint in respect of the said loan account and to collect the remaining instalments directly from the OP.1 without any adverse effects on the credit ratings of the Complainants
6. Direct OP.1 to pay Rs.5 lakhs each of the Complainants towards mental agony and suffering.
7. Direct OP.1 to pay Rs.1 crore to the Complainants towards opportunity loss.
8. Direct OP.1 to pay the cost of this complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainants/husband and wife are that, upon promises and assurances of OP.1/developer, they booked the Row House bearing No.12, super built up area 2652 sq.ft with exclusive right to use 750 sq.ft of terrace area and 446.71 sq.ft of garden area along with 2718.13 sq.ft of undivided share in the land on which the project namely Row House Residential real estate project known as „LGCL Pueblo‟ was built consisting of 59 houses with amenities such as 4 CC.No.31/2021 swimming pool, parks and open spaces, club house etc., by entering in to sale and construction agreement dtd.18.11.2017 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,06,71,402/-. As per the agreements the possession of the house was on 30.06.2019. Since the OP.2/bank is tie up with OP.1, they availed housing loan of Rs.1,39,09,053/- by entering in to Tripartite agreement dtd.24.01.2018 and the said amount directly received by OP.1. In addition the Complainants had to bear other miscellaneous charges towards processing charges, CERSAI charges etc., Complainants further submit that, out of sale consideration amount they made total payment of Rs.1,85,41,955/- (Rs.1,39,09,053/- + 46,32,902/-) including the loan amount disbursed towards land cost, construction cost and modification charges which has duly acknowledged by OP.1. However, OP.1 has illegally sought to include interest on alleged delayed payment at an exorbitant rate of 24% p.a. + GST which amounts to a huge sum of Rs.12,80,483/- although the Complainants have promptly fulfilled all their obligations and made almost 90% of the payments well within time, whereas there has been a gross delay on the part of OP.1. There has been absolutely no progress in the construction of the entire project. The said project was registered with RERA and 5 CC.No.31/2021 supposed to be completed by 30.06.2019, but OP.1 has not even bothered to seek for renewal of the project registration U/s.6 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. At the time of registration, OP.1 has issued declaration to RERA stating that the project would be completed by 31.12.2018. Complainants further submit that, almost all the other buyers in the project have also filed complaints against OP.1 before RERA, out of which 2 of them disposed off granting reliefs sought for therein vide order dtd.22.05.19 & 24.02.20. Complainant no.2 herein also filed a complaint dtd.27.02.20 against OP.1 before RERA bearing CMP/200307/0005447 which is pending for consideration. OP.1 in all the matters have taken common objections by blaming the buyers falsely stating that there was alleged delay in payments by the buyers and that the delay was also due to force majeure events such as scarcity of building materials, demonetization etc., whereas RERA has already held that such reasons cannot be accepted as force majeure and are not sustainable. Upon complaints by several buyers, Executive Engineer of RERA carried out the inspection on 06.11.2020 to know about the status of project and the report was submitted on 20.11.2020 with photographs. OP.1 mislead the buyers as well as RERA. They abandoned the work 6 CC.No.31/2021 and left it in an as is where is condition and thus buildings are in a dilapidated condition due to leakage and seepage of rain water from the roof and walls. BBMP plan sanction had validity only from 03.05.13 to 02.05.15 and thereafter not applied for seeking extension. Quarterly progress report dtd.15.07.19 submitted to RERA by OP.1 is totally fictitious and fabricated. Executive Engineer, RERA finally concluded that even if an opportunity is given to OP.1, it will not be possible to complete the pending works and may not handover possession to the buyers even by June 2022. Complainants further submit that, OP.1 before RERA taken stand that Complainants opted for modifications and there was a delay in approval and such delay could not be attributed to them. To that effect, there is no single communication from OP.1 in the relevant period i.e 2018-19 that there is delay in completion of construction due to the Complainant‟s own default or OP.1 had stopped the work due to non-payment of any amount or due to non-approval of the modifications. In fact, OP.1 received Rs.71,633/- towards minor modification work in 2019 but failed to carry out. After investing their hard earned savings, having been paying regular EMIs to OP.2 and without enjoying the benefit and comfort of a home that they had dreamt of, have undergone immense mental 7 CC.No.31/2021 torture, stress solely attributable to OP.1 which is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3. OP.1 appears through their counsel before this forum and filed objections stating that, as admitted, the Complainants have already filed complaint before RERA against OP.1 on the same cause of action. Since RERA authority already disposed of the complaint on 05.10.21 by partly allowing the complaint, the complaint before this Commission is not maintainable. OP.1 admitted that, Complainants have entered in to sale agreement with the land owners represented by OP.1, construction agreement with OP.1 and tripartite agreement entered between the Complainants, OP.1 and OP.2. As per the sale and construction agreement, the Complainants obligated to make payment of Rs.2,06,71,402/- + modification charges of Rs.71,633/-, they made only Rs.1,85,41,955/-. According to him, as on the date, Complainants are yet to pay Rs.55,64,086/- towards balance, interest on delayed payment, statutory and other charges such as power, water, generator charges with GST. OP.1 further stated that, due to such delay in making payment by the Complainants, construction activity was stopped; they opted for modifications in the year 2018 and did not finalize the modifications till 2019; while digging for the 8 CC.No.31/2021 foundation works, there were hard rocks which was removed by the traditional method i.e. by human labour only which consumed enormous time, there were strike by the lorry owners, scarcity of cement, steel and sand; these aspects hampered the project. Since the Complainants themselves are defaulters in making payment, not eligible to get Rs.20,000/- per month from the due date till the date of actual completion of the villa as per the clause 8 of the construction agreement. All the moneys paid by the Complainants have already been spent for the purpose of construction of the villa. Therefore, it is neither possible nor it is practicable to refund the amounts to the Complainants. Moreover before asking for refund, the Complainant not opted for cancellation of the booking. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP.2 also appeared through their counsel and filed objections stating that, all allegations in the complaint pertaining to OP.1 for not executing the sale deed and delivering the physical possession of the residential unit to the Complainants. Further stated that they never invited the Complainants to invest in the said project and house was booked at their sole discretion and decision. It provided only finance/credit to the Complainants to enable them to purchase the properties by borrowing loan which was granted as per sanctioned terms and conditions. Same disbursed to the OP.1 9 CC.No.31/2021 at the instructions of the Complainant. It approves the project only to the extent of its titles of the property. OP.2 is not made party before RERA. The Complainants failed to show deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint against it.
5. The Commission heard the counsel of both parties and examined the materials placed on record by them. Now, the point that arises for our consideration is, whether the Complainants are entitled for the relief sought for as against the OP.1 alleging deficiency in service ?
6. It is the contention of the OP.1 that, since the Complainant no.2 have already file a complaint before Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru (RERA) against OP.1 herein and got final order on same cause of action/dispute i.e. not handing over the possession of row house in time, the present complaint is not maintainable. The RERA has allowed the complaint partly filed therein and directed respondent/OP.1 herein to pay delay compensation by way of interest at 2% p.a. above MCLR of SBI from 01.07.2019 on respective amounts from the dates of receipt of respective amounts till handing over of the possession of the row house, with occupancy certificate; to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost. To substantiate his contention he relied on the decision reported in 10 CC.No.31/2021 (2021) 3 SCC 241 in the case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt., Ltd., vs. Abhishek Khanna & Others, wherein at para 37.5 it held as An allottee may elect or opt for one out of the remedies provided by law for redressal of its injury or grievance. An election of remedies arises when two concurrent remedies are available, and the aggrieved party chooses to exercise one, in which event he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action. Further relied on the decision reported in (2019) SCC Online NCDRC 335 in the case of Ajay Nagpal vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd., wherein at para 39 it observed that Intention of the framers of law has been made clear by the concerned department i.e. Ministry of Housing and Urban Property Alleviation, Government of India in its website www.mygov.in/ group/ministry-housing-and- urban-oivertt-allevation. Under Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), at sl.nos.86, it was observed as Can a Complainant approach both the Regulatory Authority/adjudicating officer and the consumer forums for the same disputes ? Answer: The laws of the country do not permit forum shopping, thus, an aggrieved can only approach one of the two for disputes over the same matter. Further relied on the decision reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 9949 in the case of M3M India Pvt., Ltd., & Anr., vs Dr.Dinesh Sharma & Anr., wherein at para 22 it held as "The alternative submission on behalf of the 11 CC.No.31/2021 petitioners was that the conclusion of the Supreme Court in paragraph 86(ii) of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd., vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online SC 1005, with regard to the concurrence of remedies under CPA, RERA and IBC, forms neither the ratio decidendi nor an obiter dictum. Counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Issardas & Ors. vs. A. N. Sattanathan & Ors. AIR 1955 Bom 113 and the Single Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Maghraj Patodia vs. R.K. Birla AIR 1969 Raj 245. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the Bombay judgment, the Division Bench accepted that obiter dicta of the Supreme Court are binding, but held that the point in question must have arisen in the case. The Division Bench concluded on this point as follows: -
"10. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that every opinion of the Supreme Court would be binding upon the High Courts in India. The only opinion which would be binding would be an opinion expressed on a question that arose for the determination of the Supreme Court, and even though ultimately it might be found that the particular question was not necessary for the decision of the case, even so, if an opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court on that question, then the opinion would be binding upon us...". Citing these decisions, learned counsel for the OP.1 submits to dismiss the 12 CC.No.31/2021 complaint as not maintainable, since the Complainants have already got redressed their remedy before RERA and hence seeking alternative remedy under the CP Act is barred.
7. On the contrary learned counsel for the Complainants submits that though the Complainants approached RERA and also got relief, not barred him to continue with the proceedings before this Commission in view of the decision reported in AIR 2021 SC 70 in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd., vs. Anil Patni and Anr., wherein it is held as Discretion is given to allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings against builder under CP Act or file application under RERA act, since RERA Act does not bar such initiation. We have gone through the decisions relied on by both parties. We found there is considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the Complainants in respect of maintainability in adjudicating the matter by this Commission related to real estate. In one of the decision relied on by OP.1 reported in (2019) SCC Online NCDRC 335 in the case of Ajay Nagpal vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd., wherein itself held at para 41 opining that the consumer commission has jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint cases filed by the consumers and neither Sec.71, 79 nor 89 of RERA Act creates any 13 CC.No.31/2021 embargo or prohibits the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. In view of this, we would like to make mention of the provisions of the Sec.71, 79 & 89 of RERA Act, which reads thus:
Sec.71 .........Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. Sec.79: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. Sec.89: The provisions of this Act shall have effect, not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.
Further Sec.100 of the CPA 2019 provides "this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law 14 CC.No.31/2021 for the time being in force." Sec.88 of the RERA Act also provides "this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." Hence in view of the provisions laid down in the CPA and RERA with reference to the decisions relied upon supra, we are of the opinion that, it is for the Complainant‟s choice to knock the door of the Consumer forum or RERA to get redress their remedy. In this regard we also like to mention the judgment of the RERA, wherein at para 14 it held as:
The authorised signatory of the respondent has filed memo dtd.27.08.2021 along with copy of complaint filed by the Complainant herein with his wife against the respondent and another, in case No.31/2021 before Hon‟ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (SCDRC). It is stated n the memo that the Complainant herein has filed the said complaint in case no.31/2021 before the Hon‟ble SCDRC, Bengaluru on the same cause of action as what is being stated in this complaint hence prayed to dismiss this complaint. The parties, relief sought, in the complaint in case no.31/2021 before the Hon‟ble SCDRC, Bengaluru and in the instant case are not same. This apart the relief sought in the instant complaint under the provisions of RERA Act, particularly U/s.18(1) of the RERA Act, is in addition to the remedy available in any other case. Therefore it is the choice of the Complainant to opt for the relief under the provisions of RERA Act, or under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore there is no substance 15 CC.No.31/2021 in the submission of the authorised signatory of the respondent to dismiss this complaint because of the Complainant filed another case in the complaint in case no.31/2021 before the Hon‟ble SCDRC, Bengaluru. In view of discussion made above in respect of jurisdiction and maintainability of the consumer cases before Consumer Commission and RERA, and both Consumer Protection Act and Real Estate Regulation & Development Act are comprehensively extends the remedy, even Hon‟ble Supreme Court has verified this aspect, question of pursuing either with CP Act and RERA Act are comprehensive and there is no such conflict, in the circumstances we do not find any substance in the objections raised by the learned counsel for the OP.1. Hence, the present complaint is certainly maintainable before this Commission.
8. Now coming to factual matrix of the case, the undisputed facts which reveals that the Complainants have booked the Row House bearing No.12, super built up area 2652 sq.ft with exclusive right to use 750 sq.ft of terrace area and 446.71 sq.ft of garden area along with 2718.13 sq.ft of undivided share in the land on which the project namely Row House Residential real estate project known as „LGCL Pueblo‟, by entering in to sale and construction agreement dtd.18.11.2017 with OP.1 for a total sale consideration 16 CC.No.31/2021 of Rs.2,06,71,402/- as per Annex.D. Annex.E is the cost break up for the said row house shown as Rs.2,18,01,436/- (cost of the unit + statutory & other charges + GST). Tripartite Agreement/Annex.C dtd.24.01.2018 is entered between OP.1/builder, OP.2/bank and Complainants/borrowers, wherein OP.2 bank agreed to give a loan of Rs.1,54,00,000/- to the borrowers and pay the same directly to the OP.1/builder. As per the agreements, the possession of the house to be delivered on 30.06.2019. Annx.F/Form-C goes to show that the said project is registered under RERA, wherein it is stated that the registration is valid from 31.07.2017 to 30.06.2019. When such being the fact, Complainants submit that there has been absolutely no progress in the construction of the entire project. As per the OP.1‟s payment schedule/Annex.D, itself says that out of Rs.2,41,06,041/- towards the row house, they received Rs.1,84,70,322/- as on 14.06.2019 and balance receivable shown as Rs.55,64,086/-. According to this statement, though received nearly 80% of the amount as on 14.06.2019, failed to deliver the row house in time as agreed.
9. Being aggrieved by the delay and incompletion of the project, many of the home buyers have lodged the complaint against OP.1 before RERA vide CMP/200327/0005798. Upon this complaint and as per the directions of Hon‟ble Chairman, RERA dtd.27.10.2020, the 17 CC.No.31/2021 Executive Engineer, Karnataka RERA has inspected the project on 06.11.2020 and some of the home buyers/Complainants and representatives of the builders were present at the time of inspection. The said Executive Engineer has submitted his report/Annex.L on 20.11.2020, wherein he recorded as: As per the certificates uploaded by the promoter in quarterly progress report of last quarter submitted on 15.07.2019 Q1 (2019-2020), it is stated by the concerned project architects, engineers, chartered accountants the pending works is completed up to 80% is false and the certificates issued by them are fictitious, fabricated and manipulated certificates when compared to the actual progress achieved at site.
Observations according him are (1) it is very clear that the construction of row houses is not completed even 50% as the internal works has not been tackled (2) in respect of external development works and has not at all been tackled and the percentage of work done is zero (3) in respect of civil amenities only 2% of the work i.e. foundation work has been tackled and there is a balance of nearly 98%. Further stated that, even an opportunity is given to promoter he will not be able to complete all the above said works and may not hand over the possession even by June 2022. Along with this report he submitted brochure of the project issued by the builders to the home buyers at the time of booking and also enclosed photographs 18 CC.No.31/2021 taken at the time of inspection showing incomplete work, club house building at foundation stage, dilapidated condition and leakages observed from sloped roof portion, dilapidated condition of the row house, incomplete row houses.
10. The inspection report/Annex.L submitted by the Executive Engineer, RERA itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the OP.1 has utterly failed to develop the project as agreed. Annex.K/list of complaints discloses that many of the home buyers have lodged the complaint before RERA seeking reliefs including the present Complainant no.2 herein. Among these complaints, RERA has passed the judgements/Annex.H & J giving reliefs to the Complainants therein by way of directing the builders to give delay compensation in the form of interest on the amount paid by them. The Complainant no.2 herein is also the Complainant before RERA in CMP/200307/0005447 and got judgement in favour of him, wherein also RERA directed the OP.1/builder to pay delay compensation on the amount received, in the form interest. Learned counsel for the Complainants submit that, though the Complainants got order in their favour, have preferred appeal vide Appeal No.59/2021 on the said order before RERA Appellate Tribunal Karnataka praying for further compensation which is pending for final disposal. He further submits that RERA Appellate 19 CC.No.31/2021 authority is waiting for the order of this Commission to pass suitable orders.
11. As per Annex.D/payment schedule issued by the OP.1, Complainants yet to pay Rs.55,64,086/- towards balance such as interest on delayed payment, modification charges, statutory and other charges such as power, water, generator charges with GST. Hence, OP.1 submits that, due to such delay in making payment by the Complainants, construction activity was stopped. Further submits that they opted for modifications in the year 2018 and did not finalize the modifications till 2019. Further OP.1 has taken shelter under force majeure events such as there were strike by the lorry owners, scarcity of cement, steel and sand and these aspects hampered the project. In our view these reasons for delay are not sustainable in view of inspection report/Annex.L dtd.20.11.2020 submitted by RERA Executive Engineer. As per the terms of the construction agreement, the OP.1 ought to have handover the possession of row house on or before June 2019 including 6 months grace period, but admittedly as on today the possession of the row house has not been handed over to the Complainants. In support of his contention towards reasons for delay, OP.1 has not adduced any cogent evidence. Therefore, in view of inordinate delay on the part of OP.1 even after receiving around 80% of the agreed 20 CC.No.31/2021 amount and in view of inspection report submitted by Executive Engineer, RERA, there is no hesitation to hold that there is delay in handing over possession of the row house. Further, in our view, after investing their hard earned savings, having been paying regular EMIs to OP.2 and without enjoying the benefit and comfort of a home that they had dreamt of, have undergone immense mental torture, stress which solely attributable to OP.1 and these acts amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, for which OP.1 is liable to compensate. Hence, the Complainants are before this Commission seeking refund of the amount so far paid with interest and compensation instead of possession of the flat. To this stand, they relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 5 SCC 725 in the case of Pioneer Urban land and Infrastructure Ltd., vs Govindan Raghavan, wherein held as „buyer cannot be compelled to take delivery of flat when there is delay in delivery of possession by builder and entitle for refund along with compensation/interest‟.
12. Further OP.1 submits the copy of Confidentiality agreement and Engagement agreement dtd.29.11.2021 entered into with one Lateralus Pvt., Ltd., stating that it is making all efforts to raise funds from the market to complete the project, which in our view does not come to his aid for the above reasons.
21 CC.No.31/2021
13. Since the Complainants are no longer interested in the row house in question and seeking for refund, there is no scope for tripartite agreement entered into between the OP.1/builder, Complainants/borrowers and OP.2/bank, wherein loan availed from OP.2/bank from the Complainants is directly disbursed to OP.1/builder.
14. For the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the OP.1 is liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainants and also the amount paid towards bank loan pre-EMIs, EMIs and other charges with interest. Further OP.1 is also liable to pay the balance outstanding loan amount availed from OP.2 by the Complainants. In that event, since the Complainants are no longer are the owners of the said property/row house in question, hence the tripartite agreement entered into between the parties liable to be cancelled.
15. Accordingly the present complaint is allowed in part directing the OP.1 to refund the amount so far collected from the Complainants with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of respective payment till realization to the Complainants. Further OP.1 is directed to refund the amount paid by the Complainants to OP.2/bank towards the bank loan pre-EMIs, EMIs and other charges in respect of loan account no. PHR056102916548 with interest at 10% p.a. from the 22 CC.No.31/2021 date of respective payment till realisation to the Complainants.
Further OP.1 is directed to repay the remaining instalments/balance outstanding loan amount availed from OP.2 bank by the Complainants as per said loan account including the principal and interest components to OP.2/bank. OP.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainants. OP.1 is directed to comply this order within six months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount awarded towards compensation and cost shall carry interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
16. OP.2/bank is directed to cancel the existing tripartite agreement and collect the balance/remaining instalments from the OP.1/builder.
17. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*NS*