Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 298 of 2019
Date of Institution : 15.04.2019
Date of Reserve : 12.12.2019
Date of Decision : 08.01.2020
1.Mohinder Singh Bhullar S/o Sh.Shingara Singh
2. Manjinder Kaur W/o Sh.Mohinder Singh Both are residents of House No.1392, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana.
.....Complainants Versus
1. M/s Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd., SCO 2, First Floor, Phase-10, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its authorized signatory. Email : [email protected] 2nd Address : Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.846, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
2. Harpreet Singh S/o Jaswinder Pal Singh, authorized signatory for Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd., SCO 22, First Floor, Phase 10, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
3. M/s Ajeet Associates, #857, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh through its CEO Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh.
4. Jatinder Pal Singh, CEO, M/s Ajeet Associates, #857, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.
5. Mohinder Singh, Managing Director, Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd., SCO 22, First Floor, Phase-10, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
6. Jaswinder Singh, Director, Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd., SCO 22, First Floor, Phase-10, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 2 Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member Present:- For the complainants : Sh.Mandeep Singh, Advocate
For opposite parties No.1,2,5&6: Sh.Arundeep, Advocate For opposite parties No.3 & 4 : Sh.Arundeep, Advocate (Struck off vide order dated 02.09.2019.) RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainants have filed this complaint, under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') seeking following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to refund the whole amount of Rs.30,40,001/- from respective dates of payment with interest at the rate of 18% per annum;
ii) to pay Rs.3,00,000/- each to both the complainants as compensation for mental harassment;
iii) to pay Rs.35,000/- towards litigation charges; and
iv) to pay Rs.5,000/- as travelling expenses spent on visiting various offices of the opposite parties; or
v) any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper.
Facts of the Complaint
2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainants approached the opposite parties in June, 2014 to purchase a residential plot for their own residence. The opposite Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 3 party No.3 showed a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in Mega Housing Project named as Altus Muirwoods Ecocity at New Chandigarh, Mohali. On 16.06.2014, an agreement was executed between the complainants and opposite party No.3 and complainants paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.6,00,000/- as cash as registration charges and earnest money for the plot 200 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.15,550/- per sq. yards. The total sale consideration of the plot was fixed as Rs.35,00,000/- including all types of charges etc. Further the complainants on 10.02.2015 paid Rs.1,40,000/- by cheque to opposite party No.1. Later, the complainants requested opposite party No.1 to change the plot size from 200 sq. yards to 150 sq. yards due to some domestic problem. On 03.07.2015, the opposite party No.1 got signed a pre-prepared and pre-drafted Buyers Agreement with opposite party No.1. In the said agreement, the cash payment of Rs.6,00,000/- was not shown in the agreement and also price of the plot was shown as Rs.16,497/- per sq. yards as per which the total sale consideration of the plot is Rs.26,23,518/- for the plot size measuring 159.03 sq. yards. On asking about the receipt of Rs.6,00,000/-, the opposite parties assured that the receipt will be handed over within time. Against the total sale consideration, the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.27,40,001/- to the opposite parties on different dates. On 14.07.2015, opposite party No.1 issued a Tentative Plot Allotment Letter without any size specifications to the complainants and allotted plot No.1642 in their name. Further, on 30.08.2015, a Provisional Allotment Letter was Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 4 issued to the complainants without any size and specifications. On demand of Rs.3,00,000/-, the complainants told the opposite parties that Rs.27,40,001/- has already been paid to the opposite parties and the excess amount be adjusted. However, on 23.12.2015, the complainants were forced to pay Rs.3,00,000/-. In this way, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.30,40,001/- to the opposite parties. As per the agreement, the possession was to be delivered to the complainants within 30 months with extended grace period of 6 months from the date of agreement i.e. by 03.07.2018. However, the possession was not delivered within the time frame. It has been further averred that the complainants shocked to see on visit to the site that there was no development and opposite parties were delaying the matter on one pretext or other. It also came to know to the complainants that necessary approvals have not been obtained by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have violated the provisions of PAPRA. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants filed the complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel, however, opposite parties No.3 & 4 did not file their written statement with the prescribed period, therefore, the defence of opposite parties No.3 & 4 struck off vide order dated 02.09.2019.
4. Opposite parties No.1, 2, 5, & 6 filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that the CLU was approved for the Residential Housing Project by the Government for 127.58 acre of Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 5 land. Prior to that CLU for 229.77 acre of land was granted on 17.11.2011 for 26.41 acre was granted on 14.05.2012 and CLU for 23.75 acre was granted on 25.06.2013. The Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 31.03.2015 cleared the layout plan. It has been further contended that a Plot Buyers Agreement dated 03.07.2015 was executed between the complainants and opposite party No.1. As per clause 5.1(a) of the agreement the possession was to be handed over within 30 months or with an extended period of 6 months, subject to timely payments. Further as per clause 5.1(d) Developer shall be entitled to reasonable extension in offering / delivery of possession of the plot to the purchaser. As per Clause 5.1(c) of the agreement the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5/- per sq. yards per month of the area of the plot for delaying in handing over the possession. As per clause 5.3(c) if for any reason the developer is not in a position to offer the plot, he would offer the purchaser an alternative property or refund the amount in full with interest at the rate of 9% per annum without any further liability. The opposite parties have environmental clearance from the government authorities. The agreement contains Arbitration Clause i.e. Article 13, hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Plot bearing No.1642 has already been allotted to the complainant. The plots are ready for possession to be handed over as per stipulated terms and conditions in the agreement. The complainants are not consumers as they have purchased the plot, in question, for investment purposes. On merits, it is submitted that the development of the Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 6 project is at final stage and plots are ready for possession. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Rest all the other averments as averred by the complainants in their complaint were denied and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. To prove their claim, the complainants have filed their join affidavit along with documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12.
6. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1,2,5 & 6 have filed the affidavit of Narinder Singh Sidhu, General Manager / Authorized Signatory along with documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/6, Ex.OP-1/7(coll) & Ex.OP-1/8(colly).
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
8. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainants on 16.06.2014 entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for purchasing a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in their project and paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.6,00,000/- as cash as earnest money. The total sale consideration of the plot was fixed as Rs.35,00,000/- including all types of charges etc. However, the complainants due to domestic problem requested to change the said plot from 200 sq. yards to 150 sq. yards. On this, another Buyer's agreement was entered into between the parties on 03.07.2015, in which the opposite parties had not shown the detail of Rs.6,00,000/- received in cash and moreover the price of the plot was shown as Rs.16,497/- per sq. yards, according to that total sale consideration of the plot is Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 7 comes to Rs.26,23,518/- for the plot size measuring 159.03 sq. yards. Against the total sale consideration, the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.30,40,001/- to the opposite parties on different dates. On 14.07.2015, opposite party No.1 issued a Tentative Plot Allotment Letter without any size specifications to the complainants. Further, on 30.08.2015, a Provisional Allotment Letter was issued to the complainants without any size and specifications. As per the agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 30 months with extended grace period of 6 months from the date of agreement i.e. by 03.07.2018. But the possession was not delivered with the time frame. On visit to the site, the complainants found no development at site and the opposite parties put off the matter on one pretext or other. The opposite parties have also not obtained the necessary approvals from the competent authorities. The opposite parties have also violated the provisions of PAPRA. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs.
9. Per contra, it has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainants are investors, who have invested their money in order to earn profits and, as such, they do not fall in the definition of "consumer" as defined in the C.P. Act. There is arbitration clause 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3 in Article 13 of the Buyer's Agreement and, as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 8 development works of the project are at final stage and the plots are ready for possession. The complainants failed to make the payment and have filed the complaint because of slump in real estate sector. However, for the delayed period the complainants are entitled to Rs.5/- per square yard per month of the area of the plot as per clause 5.1(c) of the said Buyer's Agreement. The CLU and layout plans have already been approved by the competent authorities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties.
11. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that identical matters have already been decided by this Commission in the following cases:
i) Consumer Complaint No.433 of 2019 (Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. The M/s Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) decided on 17.10.2019.
ii) Consumer Complaint No.297 of 2019 (Sukchain Singh & Anr. v. M/s Altus Space Builders Private Limited and others) decided on 03.10.2019;
iii) Consumer Complaint No.309 of 2019 (Pardeep Maini Vs. M/s Altus Space Builders Private Limited & Ors.) decided on 17.09.2019.
12. The matter in the present complaint is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said cases, so I intend to decide the Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 9 present complaint in view of orders passed in above said cases.
13. Firstly, I would like to dispose of preliminary objections raised by opposite parties in its written statement that the complainants do not fall under the definition of "consumer" as defined in the Act, on the ground that they purchased the plot for speculative purposes.
14. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties to prove that the complainants are indulging in sale/purchase of property for commercial purpose. Therefore, simple assertion in this regard in the reply of opposite party No.1, without any cogent and convincing evidence in support thereof, is not sufficient to prove this fact. Hon'ble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA STATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale/purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. The Hon'ble National Commission in III (2015) CPJ 63 (NC) Beatty Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 10 Tony versus Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd., also held that merely on booking of the plot it cannot be presumed that it is booked for 'commercial purpose' and the complainant was considered as a 'consumer'. In the instant case also, as already discussed above, there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainants indulged in sale/purchase of properties or that they purchased the plot, in question, for further sale or for earning profits. Accordingly, the above said objection/contention of opposite parties is rejected and the complainants are held to be 'consumers', under the Act.
15. So far as the other objection of opposite parties that the matter is to be referred to arbitration under clause 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3 of the Buyer's Agreement dated 16.06.2014, Ex.C-1, is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as "Aftab Singh Versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the complainants and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) filed against the said order of the Hon'ble National Commission had also been dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. The Review Petitions (C) Nos.2629- 2630 of 2018 have also recently been dismissed by the Hon'ble Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 11 Apex Court on 10.12.2018. Consequently, the existence of an Arbitration Clause is not a bar to resolution of this dispute by this Commission. Accordingly, the said objection of opposite parties is hereby rejected.
16. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the an agreement dated 16.06.2014, Ex.C-1, was executed into between the complainants and opposite parties, wherein the complainants agreed to purchase a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in the project of the opposie aprties for the total sale consideration of Rs.15,500/- per sq. yards, which includes CLU charges only. In the agreement, it has been specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- has been received by the opposite parties and rest Rs.14,50,000/- was to be given at the time of offer of allotment and Rs.500/- per sq. yard at time of possession. Vide letter dated 19.04.2015, Ex.C-3, the complainants requested the opposite parties to change the plot from 200 sq. yards to 150 sq. yards. Thereafter, a Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 03.07.2015 was executed between the complainants and opposite parties, wherein the complainants were allotted a plot measuring 159.03 sq. yards at the Basic Sale Price of Rs.16,30,058/- excluding other charges. As per Article 5.1(a), the possession was to be delivered within a period of thirty months or within an extended period of six months from the date of signing of the agreement. The relevant Article 5.1(a) is reproduced as under:-
"5.1 Delivery of Possession
a) That the Seller shall put its best efforts to complete the development of the Said Plot/Project within 30 (Thirty) Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 12 months or within an extended period of six months from the date of signing of this Agreement by the Purchaser, subject to Force Majeure conditions (as mentioned in clause b) hereunder) and subject to various plot buyers making timely payment or subject to any other reasons beyond the control of the Developer. No claim by way of damages / compensation shall lie against the Developer in case of delay of handing over the possession on account of any of the aforesaid reasons and the Developer shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the Said Plot to the Purchaser. It is, however, understood between the Parties that various Plots comprised in the Project shall be ready in phases and handed over accordingly. The aforesaid period of development shall be computed by excluding Sundays, Bank holidays, enforced Govt. Holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any judicial / concerned State Legislative body."
Further as per Article 5.3(c) in case the Developer is not at all in a position to offer the plot, he would give alternate property or refund of the amount in full along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The relevant Article 5.3(c) is reproduced hereunder:-
"(c) If for any reason the Developer are not at all in a position to offer the Plot, as agreed herein, the Develper may offer the Purchaser an alternative property or refund the amount in full with interest @9% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation."
17. Against the total sale consideration the complainants have paid Rs.30,40,069/- to the opposite parties. To prove this fact, the complainants have placed Agreement to Sell dated, 16.06.2014, Ex.C-1, Receipts, Ex.C-2, Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-11. As per the agreement dated 03.07.2015, the stipulated period for delivery of possession expired on 03.07.2018, but the opposite parties failed to complete the development works and deliver possession of the plot to the complainant till today.
18. Opposite parties in their written statement stated that Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 13 development works of the project are at final stage and they are ready to hand over possession of the plot to the complainants. It has got environmental clearance as well as other required clearances from the Government authorities. However, no evidence has been led by the opposite parties to evident development at the site. This admission of opposite parties belies their own stand that the development of the project is at final stage.
19. The Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra), categorically held that legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of Completion Certificate issued by the Competent Authority. It was held in Para No.5 as follows:
1. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at a ny time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat.Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 14
The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite c ompletion certificate had not been obtained by that date......."
20. However, no Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority has been produced by the opposite parties on the record, which itself is violation of above reproduced Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 7th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing) as well as Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, reproduced above. Even till today, no Completion Certificate has been produced before this Commission. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above noted authority, in the absence of such a certificate issued by the competent authority, it cannot be said that development at the site has been completed in all respects and that opposite parties are is in a position to deliver physical possession of the plot to the complainants.
21. Furthermore, the Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015 (Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited), decided on 14.09.2016, held that the complainant cannot be compelled to take possession, if the same has not been given within the promised period. It was observed as under:-
"12. During the course of hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that on 06.4.2016, they have already obtained post-completion certificate in respect of the villa allotted to the complainant. He also submitted that vide letter dated 06.5.2016, they have Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 15 already informed the complainant about grant of the part occupancy certificate and asked him to pay an additional amount of Rs.3,01,200/- on account of revision of EDC by Government of Punjab. The learned counsel for the complainants however, maintained that considering the breach of its contractual obligation by the opposite party, the complainant is not obliged to accept the offer of possession at such a belated stage, particularly when the said offer is not accompanied by an offer to pay adequate compensation for the delay in offering possession of the villa. I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainant that considering the default on the part of the opposite party in performing its contractual obligation, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest."
22. The opposite parties pleaded in its reply that CLU for 229.77 acre of land was granted on 17.11.2011, vide letter Ex.OP1/1; CLU for 26.41 acres was granted on 14.05.2012, vide letter Ex.OP1/2; CLU for 23.75 acres was granted on 25.06.2013, vide letter Ex.OP1/3 for the first phase of the project and the CLU was approved on 10.09.2012 for 127.58 acres of land, vide letter Ex.OP1/4 and the layout plan was approved on 08.05.2014, vide letter Ex.OP1/5. However, I find that the said CLUs were granted, subject to compliance of various terms and conditions mentioned therein, such as obtaining of NOC from PPCB under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Municipal solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2008, approval/NOC from Competent Authority to fulfill the requirement of Notification Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 16 dated 14.09.2006 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, permission from Forest Deptt. under Forest Act, 1980 and P.L.P. Act etc. Opposite party No.1 has failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the opposite parties have complied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the above said letters, in letter and spirit, and in the absence of such evidence, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the opposite parties that they have not complied with those terms and conditions. Besides this, the opposite parties have violated various provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA").
23. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days' notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to lead any evidence to prove that they have complied with Section 3 of the PAPRA.
24. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, a builder/developer is liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony. However, the Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 17 opposite parties have also not led any evidence to prove that they have obtained the requisite permission/approvals etc. from the competent authorities before setting up their project. Thus, they violated Section 5 of PAPRA.
25. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, they also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
26. As per Rule 17 of the "Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, 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."
27. The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the unit within a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 18 made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of land and development thereof within a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the unit within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties, i.e. builders, knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with various provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period and, thus, by misrepresentation induced the complainant to book the unit, due to which she has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities.
28. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2019 19
i) to refund the deposited amount of Rs.30,40,001/-, as prayed, to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from respective dates of deposits till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay Rs.51,000/-, as compensation, on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainants including litigation costs.
29. Opposite parties are directed to comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof.
30. Arguments in these complaints were heard on 12.12.2019 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the orders be communicated to the parties, as per rules.
31. This complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER January 8th ,2020 parmod