charges etc. As per document Annexure C-6 dated 20.10.2011, the complainant filled up application form to purchase a plot, terming it as expression of interest to purchase plot in a project launched by the opposite party. It is case of the complainant that as on 26.10.2011, an amount of Rs.18,37,500/- i.e. Rs.11,02,500/- vide cheque dated 26.10.2011 and Rs.7,35,000/- in cash, was paid by her towards booking of the plot, in question.

4. It is further stated that Buyer's Agreement in respect of the plot, in question, has not been offered for execution by the opposite party. It was alleged that above act of the opposite party amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short the PAPRA). Firm date to hand over possession of the plot after development was also not given. It is further stated that vide letter dated 03.03.2014 Annexure C-8, the opposite party made further demand of an amount of Rs.12.25 lacs, to be paid within 15 days.

5. It was averred that, by 13.04.2015, in all, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.35,87,500/- towards part price of the said plot. Detail qua amount paid has been referred to, as under:-

Cheque no.943237 dt. 4. 13.04.2015 500000.0027.02.2015

Cheque no.316701 dt. 5. 03.03.2015 525000.0027.02.2015

6. 13.04.2015 490000.00Cash

Total payment 3587500.00

6. Out of the above amount, Rs.4.90 lacs, allegedly paid in cash, mentioned against Sr.no.6 of table above, is disputed by the opposite party. To say that an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs was paid through cash, affidavit of one Major Singh, has been placed on record as Annexure C-9. Similarly, in consumer complaint no.252 of 2016, out of the amount of Rs.30,62,500/-, paid by the complainant in that case, an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs, allegedly paid by him, in cash, as on 13.04.2015, has also been disputed by the opposite party.

7. It is case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs, in cash, was handed over to the opposite party. For the cash amount paid, receipt was not given.

8. It was averred that without getting permissions(s) to develop a project and selling the plots, also by not executing Buyer's Agreement till date, the opposite party has indulged into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that to claim refund, legal notice was also served upon the opposite party

3

on 15.03.2016, to which, no reply was received. By stating as above, refund of amount deposited with interest @18% p.a., has been sought alongwith compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses or in the alternative to execute the Buyer's Agreement; handover possession of the plot and to pay interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay till realization. At the time of arguments, latter prayer was not pressed.

9. Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein numerous preliminary objections were raised. It is specifically stated that in view of purchase of five plots by the complainant and her husband, in the project in dispute, she would not fall within the definition of consumer. The investment was made to earn profits in future. It is stated that disputed questions of fact and law are involved in the present case, as such, the matter be referred to the Civil Court. It was categorically alleged that the husband of the complainant (complainant in connected complaint) had sold a number of plots in the project, in dispute, at the instance of the opposite party, for which he had received brokerage charges. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs, in cash, was not received on 13.04.2015, as alleged. Acceptance of rest of the amount has not been denied. It was further stated that, as on today, the project stood approved by the Competent Authorities and application for issuance of a notification to exempt the opposite party, from applicability of the provisions of PAPRA, is still under consideration. It was further stated that huge amount has been invested by the opposite party for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute.

10. On merits, it was admitted that the plot was purchased, as alleged by the complainant. It was stated that let the complainant approach the opposite party for execution of the Buyer's Agreement. It was further stated that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Govt., which could be termed as force majeure circumstances. It was further stated that the development work and construction is in full swing and the opposite party is trying to complete the project, at the earliest. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant still wanted refund of the amount deposited; the same would amount to surrender of the unit, and would attract forfeiture charges. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

11. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

12. We have heard Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

13. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that both the complaints are liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is no dispute that the plot was sold to the complainant in a project propagated and marketed by the opposite party on 20.10.2011. On that date, an amount of Rs.11,02,500/- was received by the opposite party. Another amount of Rs.7,35,000/- was also received by the opposite party, on 26.10.2011. It is positive case of the complainant that when expression of interest to purchase the plot was accepted, payment plan Annexure-C-5 was given, which is available at page 29 of the paper book. 30% of the basic sale price was to be paid at the time of booking of the plot and 60% of the remaining amount was to be paid within 18 months. Rest 10% of the amount was to be paid at the time of offer of possession of the plot. She has specifically stated that by 13.04.2015, she had paid an amount of Rs.35,87,500/-. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs, was paid on 13.04.2015, in cash, which is disputed by the opposite party. Be that as it may, contention of Counsel for the complainant that the project, in question, was sold without any permission/sanction from the Competent Authorities and also violating the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA appears to be correct. The said provision reads thus:-

"6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed for together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908) ;"

4

14. The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA is still pending under consideration, with the Authorities concerned. Unless exemption is granted, its violation would amount to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party, in this complaint. Qua a similar project launched by the opposite party in the same area, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, under similar circumstances, this Commission, while dismissing the said appeal, has observed as under:-

"The documents placed on record clearly show that the project was launched without getting any permission from the Competent Authorities. Detailed brochure was issued showing facilities to be made available in the project launched and its layout plan. It is also on record that when it came to the notice of GMADA that the plots/flats are being sold unauthorizedly by the appellant, it gave a notice in the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' dated 18.08.2012, which reads thus:-

"PUBLIC NOTICE

This is for the information of one and all that it has come to the notice of the Competent Authority that one company named as M/s Manohar Singh & Co. is allegedly booking/selling plots in the Mullanpur- Siswan region near Chandigarh border in the State of Punjab. This is being intimated that the above said project is not approved by the State Government. The Competent Authority is initiating legal proceedings in this regard. If anybody has booked or purchased any plot in the locality mentioned above he/she is advised to contact the undersigned along with documentary proof for further legal action against the said promoter. Further, while buying any plot in any locality falling under the jurisdiction of GMADA, all are advised to visit the website www.gmada.gov.in to verify if the colony/project is approved or not.

Chief Administrator GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar".

It is specifically stated in the notice dated 18.08.2012 that the appellant was allegedly booking/selling the plots in Mullanpur, near Chandigarh Border, in the State of Punjab, unauthorizedly. It was further stated that the project is not approved by the Competent Authority and it (Competent Authority) is initiating legal proceedings against the project proponent for its activity. Above said notice makes it very clear that when the plot was sold on 13.04.2012, the project was not approved by the Competent Authorities. It is also so reflected in the details given by the appellant with this appeal, which is available at page 33 of the paper book. Reading of above said document, makes it very clear that the project was approved by the Government on 25.04.2013; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.05.2013; Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate was granted on 31.03.2014; project was registered on 21.06.2014; No Objection Certificate by the District Forest Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was issued on 14.07.2014; Zoning plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 24.11.2015 and Detailed Project Report (DPR)/Service Plans were

5

approved by the Chief Engineer, GMADA, Mohali, on 27.11.2015. As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. It was so said by the Hon'ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-

"OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land".

15. Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.756 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, when upholding the findings given by this Commission, that the project cannot be even marketed before getting approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, to launch it, it was observed by the National Commission, as under:-

"We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel. While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-

If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.

6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate. Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project. Therefore, it is beyond one's comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible."

16. Furthermore, it is apparent on record that the Buyer's Agreement was not presented for signing. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for the project proponent to execute Buyer's Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three month. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on

6

02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

"The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated 23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer's Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer's Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected".

17. As such, by not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time and even till date, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service.

18. In the present case, an attempt has been made to by-pass the above provision by showing the sale as expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has also been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the opposite party stating that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed. As has been referred to, in earlier part of this order, it was an outright sale, when first payment was accepted by the opposite party, vide cheque dated 26.10.2011. Schedule of payment is given, according to which, further amount was also paid. Above said contention raised by the opposite party, qua similar project, in the same area, was rejected by this Commission, in the case of Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi's case (supra) wherein it was observed as under:-

"Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice."

19. It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite party. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite party was guilty of launching a project against mandate of law.

20. Further contention of Counsel for the opposite party that on account of purchase of five plots in the project, in question, by the complainant and her husband, the complainant will not fall under the definition of consumer, is also liable to be rejected. The complainant has specifically stated that she and her husband doesn't own any other property except the three plots i.e. two in dispute in this complaint and the one, which was got transferred in the name of their son. As per facts given by the opposite party, the complainant booked two plots in her name and three by her husband in his name. Out of three plots booked by her husband, one of it was transferred in the name of their son namely Parth Bhardwaj. The two plots, one each, in the name of the complainant and her husband, were surrendered and an amount of Rs.18,37,500/-, in each case, was returned to them. It may be stated here that the above fact does not take away the complainant from the definition of a consumer. She has specifically stated that other than two plots, in dispute, and one owned by her son, she does not own any other property. At the same time, it is also significant to mention here that the husband of the complainant may be a broker and that simple fact will not debar the complainant or her husband (complainant in connected complaint) to get their grievance resolved, before this Commission, in

7

respect of the property which has been purchased by them, for their personal use. There is nothing on record to show that the plots were purchased by both the complainants, for selling the same further, to gain profits.

It is on record that qua two plots, these two complaints are pending for refund of amount and two plots were surrendered by accepting the same amount, which the complainants had paid at the time of booking of plots. It is specifically so said by the opposite party that amount of Rs.18,37,500/- each, was received by both the complainants, when two plots aforesaid were surrendered. The complainants may have booked plots in the year 2011. It was their statement that they have purchased one plot each for husband and wife and two for their sons. When nothing came out, they surrendered two plots accepting amount paid by them, after many years and that too without interest. There is a clear loss to them and their act does not amount to purchase of plot(s) for the purpose of selling the same further, to gain profits. No doubt, it is also an admitted fact that the husband of the complainant is a broker. Mere fact that the husband of the complainant is a broker and has earned alleged brokerage of the units sold, on behalf of the opposite party, cannot debar him to fight for the property, which he has purchased for his personal use and for his children. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite party, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

" In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015."

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

21. Furthermore, merely because one payment of an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs, is disputed by the opposite party, the matter cannot be referred to a Civil Court, to decide dispute between the parties. Qua that payment, dispute can be left open between them. To support her contention that payment was so made, affidavit of an independent witness has been brought on record. However, to the contrary, receipt of above amount, in cash, has been denied by the opposite party. To prove above fact, detailed

8

evidence needs to be brought in Court, for which, appropriate remedy for the complainant would lie before a Civil Court. To that extent relief cannot be given to the complainant. Similar findings are applicable to the complainant in connected complaint no.252 of 2016, as in that case also, the opposite party has denied receipt of an amount of Rs.4.90 lacs, claimed by him (complainant), to be paid in cash to it (opposite party).

22. No doubt, a plea has been taken by the opposite party, in its written version, to the effect that delay in delivery of possession of the plot was caused on account of ban on mining, as such, building material such as sand etc., remained short to an extent, meaning thereby that it had encountered force majeure circumstances.

It may be stated here that as regards the alleged shortage of construction material like sand etc. in the market, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite party, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite party having invited tenders for supply of construction material and there being no response to such tenders. A similar plea for delay in delivery of possession of the units, was taken by a builder, before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints), decided on 14 Aug 2015, which was rejected and the complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to be present case. In the present case also, the opposite party failed to convince this Commission, that it actually encountered force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the unit occurred. As such, the stand taken by the opposite party, in this regard, is rejected.

23. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is unable to deliver possession of the unit, in question, for want of development/construction, basic amenities etc. and still firm date of delivery of possession of the unit, could not be given to the complainant. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by her. The opposite party, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by her, subject to the findings given in para no.21 above. In view of above facts of the case, the opposite party is also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to her, as also escalation in prices.

24. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that amount was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount to be ordered by this Commission, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits till realization.

25. As far as the plea taken by the opposite party, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not its (opposite party) case, that it was ready with possession of the plot, to be delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date but it was she (complainant) who wanted to rescind from the allotment of plot, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/financial constraints or for any personal reason, and is seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the opposite party, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that the complainant is entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per law. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.

26. No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, in both the complaints.

27. For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs in the following manner:-

9

In consumer complaint bearing no.251 of 2016 titled as Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt., the opposite party is directed as under:-

i. To refund the amount Rs.30,97,500/- (Rs.35,87,500/- minus (-) Rs.4.90 lacs, as indicated above), to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. Qua refund of Rs.4.90 lacs, the complainant is free to avail any other legal remedy.

ii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

iv. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

In consumer complaint bearing no.252 of 2016 titled as Virinder Bhardwaj Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt., the opposite party is directed as under:-

i. To refund the amount Rs.25,72,500/- (Rs.30,62,500/- minus (-) Rs.4.90 lacs, as indicated above), to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. Qua refund of Rs.4.90 lacs, the complainant is free to avail any other legal remedy.

ii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

iv. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

10

28. However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in both the complaints, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment towards the said units, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants).

29. Certified copy of this order be placed on the complaint files bearing No.252 of 2016.

30. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

31. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.

27.09.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

11

Virinder Bharadwaj son of Late Sh.R.K. Bhardwaj, resident of House No.2726, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. ……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

....Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in complaint bearing no.251 of 2016 titled as Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited this complaint has been partly accepted, with costs.

2. Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No.251 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.

3. Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No.251 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

4. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

12

(DEV RAJ) (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

Rg.

13