Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CC/432/2016

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

Rajinder Kumar Dogra
Adv.

Judges

Acts

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
SECTION 17 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
SECTION 3 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
SECTION 2 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
COMPANIES ACT 1956
provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act,
Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act,
provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act
provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act,
Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act,
Section 3 of the 1986 Act,
provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act,
Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act,
Section 3 of 1986 Act,
Rule 9A (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987,
provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act,
Section 8 of 1996 Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh — 20.10.2016)

Factual and Procedural Background

This consolidated opinion disposes of thirteen consumer complaints filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Unitech Limited and related entities. The complaints arise from purchasers (or subsequent purchasers) of plots in a project promoted by the opposite parties (notably in Sector 107, Mohali). The principal factual matrix (drawn from consumer complaint no.338 of 2016, Dr. Paramvir Singh and another vs. Unitech Limited and ors.) is:

The complainants purchased a plot originally allotted to Sh. Gurdeep Singh Kalra by way of endorsement of an existing Buyer's Agreement (original Buyer's Agreement dated 10.10.2008; endorsement dated 30.11.2010).
Complainants paid amounts aggregating to Rs.56,92,832/- (plus Rs.35,880/- for endorsement) by dates including 30.11.2010, 29.12.2010 and 04.04.2011; the total sale consideration noted in the Buyer's Agreement was Rs.58,84,486/-.
The Buyer's Agreement (Article 4.a.(i)) provided for delivery of possession within 36 months (subject to force majeure), and Article 4.c provided for a penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month in case of delay beyond 36 months.
Possession had not been offered by the opposite parties by the date of filing; the complainants alleged deficiency of service and sought refund with interest, compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses; in one complaint (no.432 of 2016) the complainant had sought possession or refund but later confined relief to refund + interest + compensation.
The complaints were heard together; evidence was led; arguments on preliminary and substantive points were heard; the Commission delivered a consolidated order dated 20.10.2016 disposing the matters.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the opposite parties (particularly where the parties' agreement contains a forum selection clause nominating Mohali or an arbitration clause).
Whether the purchasers (including subsequent purchasers) of plots in the project qualify as "consumers" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or whether they are investors/speculators excluded from that definition.
Whether a consumer complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Fora where the dispute arises from a contractual transaction for purchase of land/plot (i.e., whether the transaction constitutes a "service").
Whether the existence of an arbitration agreement (and the 2015 amendment to Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) ousts the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to entertain the complaint.
Whether the complainants are entitled to refund of amounts paid and interest; if so, from which date(s) interest should be awarded.
Whether the complainants are entitled to delay penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month (as per Article 4.c) in addition to refund and compensation.
Whether the complaints are liable to be dismissed for non-payment or incorrect payment of Court/filing fees.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

The opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the fully developed plot within the contractual period (36 months) and failed to pay the contractual penalty for delay.
The complainants paid substantial amounts (specific figures and dates were pleaded) and were entitled to refund of the deposited amounts with interest, compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
Complainants asserted their status as home-seekers: they resided in rented accommodation and required the plot for family/residential use (not merely as speculative investment).
They relied on the consumer jurisdiction and sought relief before the State Commission; they did not rely on arbitration as the exclusive remedy.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

Preliminary objections: the Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction because Article 12.b of the Buyer's Agreement designates the Courts at Mohali for adjudication.
The complainants are investors/speculators who purchased the plot for future gain (resale) and therefore do not fall within the statutory definition of "consumer".
The dispute is contractual and thus not maintainable as a consumer complaint; only Civil Courts have jurisdiction over contractual claims.
There exists an arbitration clause in the Agreement; in light of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the matter should be referred to arbitration (argument pressed particularly in light of amendments effected in 2015 to Section 8 of the 1996 Act).
Force majeure and reasons beyond control entitled the opposite parties to reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession; development was ongoing and possession would be offered shortly.
Objection that proper court/filing fees were not paid by the complainants (challenge to maintainability on procedural fee grounds).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mr. Om Parkash Dua and ors. Vs. Unitech Limited and another	Rejected similar territorial jurisdiction objection where marketing office was in Chandigarh.	Relied on to hold Chandigarh Commission had territorial jurisdiction because the Marketing Office was situated and carrying out project activities in Chandigarh.
Sanjeev Dhir Vs. Unitech Limited	Marketing office at Chandigarh was responsible for development and marketing of the project (part of cause of action arose there).	Used to support territorial jurisdiction of the Commission and to show substantial acts took place in Chandigarh.
State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand (1984 SCR (3) 839)	Courts in whose jurisdiction products/goods are marketed will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaints.	Applied to conclude part of cause of action accrued in Chandigarh, validating Commission's territorial jurisdiction.
Amit Kohli and another Vs. Unitech Limited and Ors.	Reiterated earlier holdings on territorial jurisdiction where marketing office is responsible locally.	Referenced to support consistent approach rejecting opposite parties' territorial objection.
Manmohan Sandhu Vs. Unitech Limited and Ors.	Similar reiteration regarding territorial jurisdiction (alongwith connected cases).	Referenced in support of the Commission's jurisdictional conclusion.
Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors. (I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC))	Clause of jurisdiction in an agreement cannot exclude Consumer Fora jurisdiction; distinction between Sections 11/17 of the Act and CPC provisions.	Applied to reject the argument that a contractual forum clause should bar filing before Consumer Fora.
Ethiopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo (IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC))	Restriction of jurisdiction to a particular Court need not be given importance in appropriate circumstances.	Relied upon to reinforce that exclusive forum clauses do not oust consumer fora jurisdiction where part of cause of action arises locally.
Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs. Sameer Saksena & another (I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC))	Agreements excluding jurisdiction of certain fora/courts cannot be given effect to defeat statutory consumer jurisdiction.	Applied to support rejection of clauses excluding consumer fora jurisdiction.
Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. D. Adhilakshmi & Anr (I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC))	Agreements limiting jurisdiction to particular Courts not decisive against statutory consumer rights.	Used to support the Commission's conclusion on territorial jurisdiction.
Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385	Interpretation of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act: remedy under the Act is additional and independent; arbitration clause does not bar consumer fora.	Applied to hold that the existence of an arbitration clause does not necessarily oust consumer fora jurisdiction.
C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233	Support for the proposition that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and not in derogation of other laws.	Referred to in analysis rejecting arbitration clause as an absolute bar to consumer complaints.
Rosedale Developers Pvt. Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013)	Support for principle that consumer remedy remains available despite arbitration clauses.	Relied upon to conclude consumer fora can entertain disputes despite arbitration clauses.
Narne Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC))	Housing construction/building activities by private/statutory bodies constitute "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.	Applied to hold that transaction of allotment/purchase of plot falls within "service" for consumer law purposes; complaint is maintainable.
Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766)	Similar principle that construction/building activity is service under the Act.	Used to reinforce that the complaints involve consumer disputes (services) and are maintainable.
UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 6 SCC 335	Where refund of money is ordered, the right to interest as a matter of course follows; obligation to refund implies a right to interest.	Applied to award interest on refunded amounts to complainants.
Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors. (Complaint case No.147 of 2016)	When a subsequent purchaser pays and gets endorsement, interest entitlement accrues from the date payments were actually made by that purchaser (interest not extended for earlier periods benefiting original allottee).	Applied to determine the date from which interest is payable to subsequent purchasers (from their respective payment/endorsement dates).
Lt. Col. Dalvinder Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.	Similar approach to awarding interest to purchasers from dates of their payments/endorsement.	Referenced to support awarding interest from the dates payments were made by the complainants.
Sandeep Goyal Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited	Similar approach on interest entitlement for purchasers.	Used to support the court's determination on interest.
Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. (2016 (1) CPJ 31)	Buyer(s) of residential units are consumers unless it is proved they booked units for commercial purposes.	Applied to reject opposite parties' contention that complainants were investors/speculators and to hold they fall within consumer definition absent proof of commercial purpose.
DLF Universal Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi Gupta (2016 (2) CPJ 316)	Supportive of the proposition that purchasers are consumers unless proven otherwise.	Referred to in rejecting the speculator/investor objection.
Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited (Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided 14.09.2016)	National Commission observed that purchase of houses is not for commercial purpose merely because a person owns multiple properties; commercial purpose must be proven by evidence of trading activity.	Applied to show complainants need not be treated as investors/mercantile purchasers simply on the basis of potential future gains; absence of evidence of commercial dealing meant consumer status stands.
Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. ((2000) 5 SCC 294)	Referenced in context of arbitration jurisprudence supporting the reasoning regarding availability of consumer remedies.	Used to support the court's view on arbitration clause not ousting consumer fora jurisdiction.
National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy ((2012) 2 SCC 506)	Referenced alongside other arbitration cases in assessing the effect of arbitration clauses post-amendment.	Referred to in the discussion that precedents continue to support consumer remedy despite arbitration clauses.
Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited (Consumer Case No.346 of 2013)	National Commission's decision reiterating that existence of an arbitration clause does not bar Consumer Fora from entertaining complaints under the Act.	Used as a recent authority supporting rejection of arbitration-based jurisdictional bar.
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305	Consumers are often in a weak position; in cases of two interpretations, the one beneficial to the consumer should be accepted.	Applied to interpret the Consumer Protection Act purposively in favour of complainants when construing applicability of arbitration provisions.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers	Referenced for the same consumer-favouring interpretative principle.	Used to strengthen the purposive approach of protecting consumers when two interpretations exist.
LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal	Referenced as part of authorities recognizing consumer vulnerability and interpretive approach favoring consumers.	Referred to in the court's reasoning to adopt consumer-friendly interpretations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's reasoning proceeded in distinct legal steps tied closely to the pleadings and evidence:

Territorial jurisdiction: The Commission examined the Buyer's Agreement, documentary material and prior decisions where the Marketing Office at Chandigarh had played an active role in development, marketing and receipt of payments. The Commission concluded that a part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh; earlier decisions (including Mr. Om Parkash Dua and Sanjeev Dhir) and the principle in State of Punjab v. Nohar Chand supported treating Chandigarh as within territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the objection based on Article 12.b (nominating Mohali) was rejected.
Consumer status and maintainability: The court considered the opposite parties' contention that complainants were speculators/investors. Relying on authoritative precedents (for example Kavita Ahuja, Aashish Oberai, DLF Universal), the Commission held that mere potential for future gains or ownership of multiple properties does not convert a purchaser into a commercial buyer; the burden was on the opposite parties to prove commercial purpose. The complainants had averments of residing in rented accommodation and health issues; absent proof that purchase was for commercial trading, they qualified as "consumers."
Nature of transaction as "service": Relying on Narne Construction and similar authorities, the court held that the transaction of allotment/purchase and development constituted a "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act; hence consumer fora could entertain the dispute.
Arbitration clause and amended Section 8 (1996 Act): The Commission examined Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act (remedy is additional and not in derogation of other law) and the pre- and post-amendment texts of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. It noted precedents (including Fair Air, C.C.I Chambers, Rosedale and a line of Supreme Court and National Commission decisions) establishing that consumer remedies remain available notwithstanding arbitration clauses. The 2015 amendment to Section 8 (which requires a judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration unless prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists) was considered, but the Commission reasoned that the legislature was aware of the judicial position when it amended Section 8 and had not expressly provided that arbitration must oust consumer fora jurisdiction. The Commission took a purposive view: sending these consumer disputes to arbitration would undermine the protective, cost-effective and expeditious scheme of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the objection that arbitration ousted the Commission's jurisdiction was rejected.
Deficiency of service and unfair trade practice: On the merits (taking evidence and admitted facts), the Commission found that the opposite parties failed to deliver possession within the contractual period and failed to pay contractual penalty; no adequate explanation or record of force majeure or completion/occupation certificates was produced. The opposite parties were therefore found deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice.
Entitlement to refund and interest: The Commission applied earlier rulings (including Darbara Singh and others) to hold that a subsequent purchaser is entitled to interest from the date he actually paid the amounts and got the agreement endorsed in his favour — not from the date of the original allotment or earlier payments by the original allottee. It held that refund of amounts retained without right carries an entitlement to interest and that the complainants were entitled to refund with interest.
Date and rate of interest: For each complaint the Commission specified interest rates and the starting dates of interest according to the payments made by the complainants (endorsement/purchase dates). The Commission also differentiated rates in individual awards (some awards had interest @12% p.a., some @13% p.a., many @15% compounded quarterly), as reflected in the operative directions for each complaint.
Penalty claim @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month: The Commission held that where complainants sought refund rather than possession, they were not entitled to the contractual delayed-possession penalty in addition to refund; therefore the specific prayer for penalty @ Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month was rejected in respect of these complainants.
Court/filing fee objection: The Commission examined Rule 9A(2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and evidence of fee payment (Demand Draft dated 05.07.2016 for Rs.4,000/- where applicable) and found the complainants had paid the correct fee. The opposite parties' objection on this ground was rejected.
Relief tailoring and consequential orders: On the basis of the above analysis, the Commission partly accepted each complaint and framed specific monetary reliefs (refunds, interest, compensation for mental agony, litigation costs) and set timelines (two months for payment), with penal interest to apply on default.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: All thirteen consumer complaints were partly accepted.

Direct consequences for the parties (as ordered by the Commission):

The opposite parties were ordered, in each consolidated complaint, to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants (specific sums stated per complaint) along with interest (rates and compounding specified in the order) from the respective dates of the complainants' payments/endorsements.
Each complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) for mental agony, physical harassment and escalation in prices (unless a different compensation was specified in the separate order for a given complaint).
The complainants were awarded litigation costs (varying amounts; e.g., Rs.33,000/- in complaint no.338, Rs.50,000/- in many others) as specified for each complaint.
Payments were directed to be made within two months of receipt of certified copy of the order; failure would attract penal interest (higher rates and/or compounded) as specified for each complaint.
If complainants had availed loans from financial institutions, those institutions would have first charge to the extent of amounts due to them.
Certified copies of the order were to be placed on connected files and supplied to parties free of charge; the files were to be consigned to record rooms after completion.

Broader legal implications as expressed by the Commission (derived from its reasoning in the order):

The Commission reaffirmed the principle that consumer fora retain jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints despite arbitration clauses in agreements and despite amendments to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act in 2015; the remedial scheme of the Consumer Protection Act is additional and protective in nature.
The Commission confirmed that purchasers (including subsequent purchasers) of residential plots/housing will ordinarily be treated as "consumers" unless it is proved that the acquisition was for commercial/trading purposes.
The Commission reiterated that refund orders ordinarily carry an entitlement to interest and that, for subsequent purchasers, interest is awarded from the date they made payments/obtained endorsement, not from the date of original allotment.

Note: This summary is restricted to matters expressly stated in the provided opinion. Where the opinion itself specified terms and reliefs in detail for each complaint, those operative directions have been summarized above and were the basis for the Commission's final orders on 20.10.2016.

Show full summary ...

Rohit Vohra v. Unitech Limited

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	338 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	06.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

1. Dr.Paramvir Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of House No.1931, Phase-10, Sector 64, Mohali.

2. Dr.Jaspreet Kaur wife of Dr.Paramvir Singh, resident of House No.1931, Phase-10, Sector 64, Mohali. …… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

2. Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (Marketing), 5^thFloor, Tower A, Signature Towers, South City, NH-8, Gurgaon-122001, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.

3. Unitech Limited, SCO 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the opposite parties. ========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	293 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Rajnish Jain son of Shri Sat Pal Jain, aged 44 years, SCO No.853, Shivalik Enclave, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the opposite parties.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	294 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Rajnish Jain son of Shri Sat Pal Jain, aged 44 years, SCO No.853, Shivalik Enclave, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the

opposite parties. ========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	295 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Smt.Pooja Jain wife of Shri Manish Jain, aged 39 years, resident of House No.9, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana).

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the opposite parties.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	296 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Sat Pal Jain son of Shri Taras Ram Jain, aged 71 years, resident of House No.9, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana).

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the opposite parties.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	297 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	22.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Smt.Aruna Jain wife of Shri Sat Pal Jain, aged 68 years, resident of House No.9, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the opposite parties.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	298 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Manish Jain son of Shri Sat Pal Jain, aged 41 years, resident of House No.9, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana. …… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the opposite parties.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	299 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Smt.Aarti Jain wife of Shri Rajnish Jain, aged 41 years, SCO No.853, Shivalik Enclave, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Chairman, having its Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the opposite parties.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	432 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Rohit Vohra son of Satish Kumar Vohra, resident of House No.808, Sector 17, Panchkula (Haryana), presently residing at 241 Harbour Esplanada North Tower, Apt# 2710 Docklands Melbourne, Australia through his Special Power of Attorney Sh.Harbans Lal Budhiraja son of Sh.Shankar Dass resident of House No.808, Sector 17, Panchkula, Haryana.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.

2. Unitech Limited (Uniworld City Mohali), Marketing Office at SCO 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer.

3. Alice Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Basement 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Varun Katyal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.R.K. Dogra, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2. Opposite Party no.3 exparte.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	360 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

1. Ritu Raj Jalali son of Sh.Jawahar Lal Jalali

2. Mrs.Rekha Jalali wife of Sh.Ritu Raj Jalali Both residents of H.No.966, Sector 91, JLPL, Mohali, earlier resident of House No.3577, First Floor, Sector 69, Mohali.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

Unitech Limited, Regional Office SCO No.189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite party

Argued by:- Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.R.K. Dogra, Advocate for the opposite party. ========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	362 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

1. Brij Nandan Singh Walia son of Rajendra Singh.

2. Ramnika Singh daughter of Sh.Brij Nandan Singh Walia, through her power of attorney Sh. Brij Nandan Singh Walia.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Unitech Limited, Marketing Office at SCO No. 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite party

Argued by:- Sh.Sunil K.Sahore, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh.Rahul Bhargawa, Advocate for the opposite party.

========================================================

Complaint case No.	:	433 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Neeraj Dutta wife of Sh.Pradeep Dutta, resident of B.S. Model School, 3K Road, Ayali Chowk Anand Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Unitech Limited SCO No.189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Unitech Limited, Office 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.

3. Alice Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Basement 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-

110017.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.R.K. Dogra, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2. Opposite Party no.3 exparte.

========================================================

Complaint case No. : 467 of 2016

Date of Institution	:	17.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

Paras Chawla son of Sh.Sudershan Chawla, resident of House No.100, Sector 11A, Chandigarh. …… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, having its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. Unitech Limited, SCO 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Head/Authorized Signatory, Sh.Rakesh Chhabra.

…..Opposite parties

Argued by:- Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the opposite parties. ========================================================

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

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

MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid thirteen consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and

there, of law and facts are the same. In twelve complaints, refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest, compensation etc. has been claimed by the complainant(s). However, in consumer complaint no.432 of 2016, in the complaint, complainant has sought possession of the unit or in the alternative to refund the amount deposited, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Later on, during arguments, Counsel for the complainant in that case also, confined his prayer qua refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. At the time of arguments, on 13.10.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for all the parties, that, in view of above, these thirteen complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.338 of 2016 titled as Dr.Paramvir Singh and another Vs. Unitech Limited and ors. The complainants are husband and wife. It is their case that they wanted to purchase one plot for their family use. For the said purpose, the complainants contacted opposite party no.3 in September 2010. They were informed that the development works in project of the opposite parties, in Sector 107, Mohali, Punjab, is in full swing and possession of the units therein, is likely to be delivered to the intending purchasers by the end of December 2011. They were told that the project launched is approved by the competent authority and construction work, to provide basic amenities, like sewerage, water, electricity etc. is also in full swing. They were further informed that there are some allottees, who wanted to sell their properties and the complainants can purchase a plot of their choice from the said allottees/sellers. The complainants came to know that one Sh.Gurdeep Singh Kalra, who had purchased a plot bearing no.0109, Block B, Boulevard, measuring 358.80 square yards, situated in mega township, Sector 107, Mohali, Punjab, from the opposite parties, vide Buyer's Agreement dated 10.10.2008, wanted to sell it. By that time, Sh.Gurdeep Singh Kalra had already paid an amount of Rs.51,33,894/- to the opposite parties towards part price of the above said plot. The complainants paid the above said amount of Rs.51,33,894/- to Sh.Gurdeep Singh Kalra/the seller, and accordingly the Agreement was endorsed in their favour by the opposite parties on 30.11.2010. Transfer letter of the even date Annexure C-3 was also issued in their favour, on payment of Rs.35,880/-. In the said letter, it was confirmed by the opposite parties that they had received an amount of Rs.51,33,894/- towards price of the plot, from Sh. Gurdeep Singh Kalra, the previous owner. Alongwith the above said letter, payment schedule was also annexed indicating that further two installments were to be made on 01.01.2011 (within 27 months of allotment) and 01.04.2011 (within 30 months of allotment) and rest of the amount was to be paid upon final notice of possession. It is apparent from the Buyer's Agreement dated 10.10.2008, that total sale consideration of the plot was fixed at Rs.58,84,486/-, which included EDC etc. It is positive case of the complainants that thereafter they deposited an amount of Rs.2,61,529/- with opposite party no.3, through demand draft dated 29.12.2010. On receipt of demand letter dated 18.03.2011, the complainants further deposited an amount of Rs.2,61,529/- with opposite party no.3, through demand draft dated 04.04.2011. By that time, they had paid an amount of Rs.56,92,832/-, towards price of the plot purchased by them. It is their case that family of the complainants was living in a rented accommodation. Complainant no.1 is suffering from a serious disease. In view of that, they were making request to the opposite parties, by writing emails, that possession be handed over to them, however, they failed to get any positive response. Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement reads thus:-

"(i) That the possession of the Plot shall be delivered by the Developers to the Allottee(s) within 36 months hereof subject to Force Majeure circumstances and upon registration of Sale Deed provided all amounts due and payable by the intending Allottee(s) as provided herein have been paid to the Developers. It is, however, understood between the Parties that various Plots comprised in the Township shall be ready in phases and handed accordingly."

3. It is necessary to mention here that before delivery of possession, as per Article 4.b., it was incumbent for the opposite parties to give notice to the complainants. In case of delay in handing over possession of the plot, beyond the period of 36 months, subject to force majeure circumstances, it was provided in Article 4.c of the Agreement that penalty @Rs.50/- per square yard per month of the area

of the plot, for the period of delay shall be paid by the opposite parties, to the complainants.

4. Till the date of filing of this complaint, neither possession of the plot was offered, nor penalty amount towards delay in delivery of possession was paid to the complainants. In the month of May 2016, the complainants again contacted the opposite parties to know about status of the project and development activities however, they failed to get any positive response. Under above circumstances, by alleging deficiency in providing service, this complaint was filed claiming refund of amount paid i.e. Rs.56,92,832/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposits till realization and delayed compensation @Rs.50/- per square yard, per month, for the period of delay. Besides that, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.33,000/- were also claimed.

5. Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite parties, raising various preliminary objections questioning territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It was pleaded that as per Article 12.b of the Agreement, only the Courts at Mohali shall have Jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. It is asserted that the plot, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainants being investors, would not fall within definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further pleaded that in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

6. On merits, it was admitted that the complainants had purchased the plot, in question, in the manner, referred to above. Payments made by the complainants are also not disputed. Fact qua price of the unit, as mentioned in the complaint was also not disputed. Execution of Buyer's Agreement, in the first instance, in the name of Gurdeep Singh Kalra, the original allottee, and later on endorsement thereof, in the name of the complainants was admitted. It is stated that the dispute being a contractual one, consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court, could adjudicate the same. It was also not disputed that as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, possession of the fully developed plot, was to be delivered to the complainants within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), subject to force majeure conditions. It was stated that development activities are in full swing and the opposite parties are ready and willing to give possession of the plot purchased by the complainants, within short span of time. It was further stated that no proper court fees has been paid by the complainants, as required for filing a consumer complaint, before this Commission.

7. It was also stated that the opposite parties were entitled to reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession of the unit, on account of force majeure circumstances or the reasons beyond their control. The remaining averments are denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.

8. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those, contained in written version of the opposite parties.

9. The parties led evidence in support of their cases.

10. Counsel for the parties concerned raised arguments in terms of pleadings noted in earlier part of this order, which were heard, in detail.

11. Perusal of record of the case clearly depicts that the opposite parties have miserably failed to fulfill their promise of delivery of possession of a developed plot, within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, in terms of provisions of Article 4(a)(i) thereof. They have also failed to pay any compensation for the period of delay, in handing over possession of the plot, purchased by the complainants. It is also an admitted fact that the plot, in dispute, was initially allotted to one Sh.Gurdeep Singh Kalra from whom, the complainants purchased the same, on 30.11.2010, by making payment of Rs.51,33,894/-. To get the Agreement dated 10.10.2008 endorsed in their favour, they also paid an amount of Rs.35,880/- to the opposite parties on 30.11.2010. Allotment letter was issued in their favour on the said date and thereafter, as per demands raised, further amount was paid by the complainants, to the opposite parties. When this complaint was filed, against total price of the plot amounting to Rs.58,84,486/-, the complainants had already paid an

amount of Rs.56,92,832/-, besides amount paid to the tune of Rs.35,880/- for endorsement of the Agreement in their favour. Possession of the plot was to be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement dated 10.10.2008. When plot was purchased by the complainants, time was still available with the opposite parties to hand over possession of the developed plot, as promised. However, it was not done. There is no explanation on record to show that on account of circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties, possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainants. The opposite parties are thus, deficient in providing service, to the complainants.

12. Contention of Counsel for the opposite parties qua lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and decide the complaint needs rejection. In the Buyer's Agreement, it was specifically stated that the Marketing Office of the Company is situated at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17- C, Chandigarh. A similar plea raised by the opposite parties qua lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and decide a complaint filed against them, was earlier rejected by this Commission, vide judgment titled as Mr.Om Parkash Dua and ors. Vs. Unitech Limited and another, decided on 22.08.2016. In that case, it was noted that the Marketing Office of the opposite parties is situated in Chandigarh and the said office was responsible for development and marketing of the project, in question, as such this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In that case, it was observed by this Commission as under:-

"Contention of Counsel for opposite party no.1 that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint deserves to be rejected. According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint could be filed by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants. It is apparent on record that the Marketing Office of opposite party no.1 is situated at SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. In the Buyer's Agreement dated 28.10.2009, description of opposite party no.1 is given as under:-

"UNITECH LIMITED, a Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its Marketing Office at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh and its Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017 (hereinafter referred to as Unitech/Confirming Party) which expression shall, unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, be deemed to include its executors, administrators, successors and assigns) acting through its authorized signatory"

It is clearly mentioned that the Marketing Office of opposite party no.1 is situated at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. It has been earlier noticed by this Commission, in the case of Sanjeev Dhir Vs. Unitech Limited, Complaint case No. 177 of 2016, decided on 01.08.2016, that it was the Marketing Office of opposite party no.1 situated at Chandigarh, which was responsible for development and marketing of the project, in question. Taking note of information placed on record, in the above case, it was observed as under:-

"It is clearly mentioned that the Company has its Marketing Office at SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Registered Office is situated at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Be that as it may, as per documents placed on record by the opposite party, alongwith written statement, it becomes apparent that Marketing Office at Chandigarh/opposite party was responsible for development and marketing of the project, in question. Entire correspondence with the Authorities qua development of the project and getting necessary permissions were being taken up by the Officers of the opposite party, posted at Chandigarh. Above fact makes it clear that the Branch Office at Chandigarh was substantially taking up the activities qua the project, in question. Copy of customer ledger account Annexure C-25 in respect of the unit, in question, was also issued by the opposite party at Chandigarh. In para no.1 of the preliminary submission, it is also mentioned that Marketing Office of the Company is situated at Chandigarh. Besides all above, it has been candidly admitted by the opposite party, in

para no.24 of its reply on merits, that that all the payments were received from the complainant by Chandigarh Office of the Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand, 1984 SCR (3) 839 held that the Court(s), in whose Jurisdiction, products/goods are marketed, will have the territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of fact of Marketing Office of the opposite party at Chandigarh and also as per the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the opposite party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected."

Not only as above, payment of Rs.1,36,695/- vide cheque dated 21.07.2012, was received by the Regional Office of opposite party no.1, at Chandigarh. Photocopy of the cheque with receipt given is available at page 36 of the paper book. Facts narrated above, clearly goes to show that a part of action has accrued to the complainants at Chandigarh i.e. within the territory of this Commission, as such, this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint."

13. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission in a case titled as Amit Kohli and another Vs. Unitech Limited and Ors., complaint case no.210 of 2016, decided on 01.09.2016 and Manmohan Sandhu Vs. Unitech Limited and Ors., complaint case no.284 of 2016 decided on 07.10.2016 (alongwith two connected cases)

14. Not only as above, it is also on record that after transfer of plot in favour of the complainants on 30.11.2010, the balance amount through two cheques dated 29.12.2010 and 04.04.2011 were received by the opposite parties, in their Regional Office situated at SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Above fact is apparent on reading the documents Annexures C-5 and C-8. Thus, it is proved on record that substantial amount was received through cheques and otherwise, by Marketing Office of the opposite parties, towards price of the unit, at Chandigarh. In view of above, contention raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

15. In the written version, an objection was also taken by the opposite parties, that as per Article 12.b of the Agreement, the Courts at Mohali, shall have Jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate the complaint, and, as such, the Jurisdiction of this Commission was barred. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, except those, mentioned in Section 13 (4) of the Act, to the proceedings, in a Consumer Complaint, filed under the Act. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, this Commission is bound by the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the Parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Sections 11/17 of the Act, and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as held above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC)= VII(2011)SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down, was that the restriction of Jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case. In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I (2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the Jurisdiction of any

other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the Jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the Jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. It may also be stated here, that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that the complainants had agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, limiting the Jurisdiction to the Courts at Mohali, the same could not exclude the Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, where a part of cause of action accrued to the complainants, to file the complaint. The submission of Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16. It is admitted on record as per Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, possession of the fully developed unit was to be delivered to the complainants within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), subject to force majeure conditions. The complainants had paid an amount of Rs.56,92,832/-, in the manner, referred to above. Rest of the amount was to be paid on getting final notice of possession of fully developed plot, which was never offered by the opposite parties to the complainants within the stipulated time or even till date.

17. Contention of Counsel for the complainants that development at the spot is not complete needs acceptance. Possession of the plot has not even been offered to the complainants by the opposite parties, by the stipulated date. It is not a case of the opposite parties that possession of the fully developed plot was ready to be delivered, but the complainants have refused to come forward to accept the same (possession). Rather, in the written statement, it is admitted by the opposite parties that still the plot is not ready for delivery and the development work is still going on. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that possession of the unit will be offered to the complainants within a maximum period of three months. However, he has failed to substantiate his plea raised. Similar contention was taken by the opposite parties, in Amit Kohli and another's case (supra). However, it was rejected by this Commission noting that completion of the project will take long time.

Not only this, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties have even applied for getting occupation and completion/partial completion certificates, in respect of the project, in question. In this view of the matter, it is held that the opposite parties by making false promises to the purchasers including the complainants that possession of the plot(s) will be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, but by not abiding the same, were not only deficient in rendering service but were also guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.

18. To defeat claim of the complainants, another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, that the complainants are speculators, as they have purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. By stating as above, prayer was made to dismiss the complaint. Reliance has also been placed by Counsel for the opposite parties on the judgments of the National Commission, titled as Ved Kumari and anr. Vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. and anr., 2014 (2) C.P.J.146, Dr.Pramod Kumar Arora and anr. Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (4) CLT 482, and Saavi Gupta and another Vs. Omaxe Azorim Developers Pvt. Limited and Ors., 2012 (4) CPJ 327, to support the above contention. We have perused the judgments aforesaid and are not concurring with the plea raised. In the case of Ved Kumari and anr. (supra), it has come on record that large number of properties were purchased by the complainant/his family members. Taking note of same, it was stated in that case, that investment was made for future gains. Same is the situation in the case of Dr.Pramod Kumar Arora an anr. (supra). In that case also, it has come on record that the complainants had invested around Rs.12 crores in the project of the builder namely DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Limited. The complainants in that case failed to show that they need the properties in question, for their residential use. In Saavi Gupta and another's case (supra), the complainants had purchased four valuable properties including a penthouse

etc. In that case, the complainants failed to give any explanation, to purchase large number of properties. In the present case, it has been specifically stated by the complainants in their complaint that presently they are residing in a rented accommodation. It is further stated that complainant no.1 is not keeping good health. Before anything bad happens to the family, they would like to raise their own house to live therein.

Even otherwise, there is nothing, on record to show that the complainants are the property dealers, and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. 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 complainants, thus, fall within the definition of 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

19. Another objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, that the dispute being related to contractual matter, the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the opposite parties for purchasing a plot, in the manner, referred to above. According to Article 4.a.(i) of the Agreement, physical possession of the fully developed plot, was to be delivered by the opposite parties within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. latest by 09.10.2011 alongwith all basic amenities as mentioned in Article 2.a.(ii) of the Agreement. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes 'service' within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a

suit, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can also be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of consumer. In this view of the matter, the objection of the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

20. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;

"3. Act not in derogation of any other law.— The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." It is also desirable to reproduce unamended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, which reads thus:-

"8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made."

21. Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.

22. In the year 2015, many amendments were effected in the provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act, reads as under:-

"8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists."

23. Now it is to be seen, whether, after amendment in Section 8 of the principal Act, any additional right has accrued to the service provider(s), to say that on account of existence of arbitration agreement, for settling the disputes through an Arbitrator, the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to

entertain a consumer complaint. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, and also of the National Commission, in large number of judgments, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides additional remedy, notwithstanding any other remedy available to a consumer. The said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act/Law.

24. Now, we will have to see what difference has been made by the amendment, in the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act. After amendment, it reads that a Judicial Authority is supposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other Court, unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. The legislation was alive to the ratio of the judgments, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. Vide those judgments, it is specifically mandated that under Section 3 of 1986 Act, an additional remedy is available to the consumer(s), which is not in derogation to any other Act. As and when any argument was raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Commission in the judgments, referred to above, have made it very clear that in the face of Section 8 of 1996 Act and existence of arbitration agreement, it is still opened to the Consumer Foras to entertain the consumer complaints. None of the judgments ever conferred any jurisdiction upon the Consumer Foras to entertain such like complaints. Only the legal issues, as existed in the Statute Book, were explained vide different judgments. If we look into amended provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act, it explains that judicial Authority needs to refer dispute, in which arbitration agreement exist to settle the disputes notwithstanding any judgment/decree or order of any Court. That may be true where in a case, some order has been passed by any Court, making arbitration Agreement non-applicable to a dispute/parties. However, in the present case, the above said argument is not available. The jurisdiction of Consumer Foras to entertain consumer complaints, in the face of arbitration clause in the Agreement, is in-built in 1986 Act. It was not given to these Foras, by any judgment ever. The provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act interpreted vide judgments vis a vis Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act, were known to the legislature, when the amended Act 2015 was passed. If there was any intention on the part of the legislature, then it would have been very conveniently provided that notwithstanding any remedy available in 1986 Act, it would be binding upon the judicial Authority to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, in case of existence of arbitration agreement, however, it was not so said.

25. We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/traders. As in the present case, the complainants have spent their life savings to get a plot, for their residential purpose. Their hopes were shattered. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- (in the present case Rs.4000/-). As per the mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party. In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of Arbitrator's fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act.

26. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. As stated above, in the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase the plot, in question, in the said project, launched by the opposite parties. However, their hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of

the sale consideration, they failed to get possession of the fully developed plot, in question, in the said project. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

27. Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

"In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986."

In view of the above, objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

28. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount deposited, can be granted in favour of the complainants. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.56,92,832/- was paid by the complainants, in the manner explained above, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @18%) as per Article 2.c. of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments. 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). Under these circumstances, the complainants are held entitled to refund of the amount paid alongwith interest. In this view of the matter, the opposite parties are also liable to compensate the complainants, for causing them mental agony and physical harassment.

29. Now it is to be seen, as to from which date, interest is payable to the complainants. It is on record that initially, the plot in question was allotted to one Sh.Gurdeep Singh Kalra, from whom, the complainants have purchased it on 30.11.2010. Thereafter, as stated above, some more amount was paid by the complainants towards price of the plot, to the opposite parties. In all, the complainants are claiming refund of an amount of Rs.56,92,832/- alongwith interest. In such circumstances, from which date, interest can be awarded, this issue came up for consideration, before this Commission in Darbara

Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, and Ors., Complaint case No. 147 of 2016, decided on 22.08.2016 (connected case). In that case, this Commission while granting interest to the complainant, from the date of endorsement of the unit (as he was subsequent purchaser of the unit), on the amounts actually paid by him, held as under:-

"No doubt, Plot Buyer's Agreement was executed between the original allottee and the Opposite Parties on 20.06.2007, the complainant is a subsequent allottee and she made all the payments on 14.03.2011 and the Plot Buyer's Agreement was endorsed in favour of the complainant on 14.03.2011. Counsel for the Opposite Parties has vehemently argued that as per the Agreement, three years stipulated period for handing over of possession of the unit stood expired in June, 2010 and whereas the complainant purchased the same in March, 2011 and all the payments were made by the complainant at the time of endorsement in March, 2011 only and, therefore, she is entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the date she purchased the unit, in question, in March, 2011. Moreover, it is very clear that the relevant transfer formalities of the unit, in question, took place in the year 2011 much after the original expected date of possession i.e. June, 2010, whereby, the complainant is very well aware of the delay caused in handing over of the possession and yet chose to get the unit endorsed in her favour in March, 2011."

30. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission, in Lt.Col. Dalvinder Singh, Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and another, Complaint case No. 230 of 2016, decided on 02.09.2016 and Sandeep Goyal Vs. M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, complaint case no.339 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. In the present case also, right to get interest will accrue to the complainants from the date, when they have purchased the plot, in dispute, and paid amount to the original allottee, followed by remaining amount paid by them, thereafter, to the opposite parties. Whatever interest was due or may have accrued in favour of the original allottee (Sh.Gurdeep Singh Kalra), he decided not to claim it, when he had sold the unit to the complainants, on receipt of amount paid to him i.e. Rs.51,33,894/-. May be it was a distress sale against which the plot was purchased by the complainants. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.51,33,894/- to the original allottee on 30.11.2010. They also paid an amount of Rs.35,880/- to get the endorsement on Agreement in their favour. In this manner, they are entitled to get interest from the date when the amount was actually paid by them. Benefit of amount paid whereof 2008 upto the date of purchase of the plot by the complainants, qua interest cannot be extended in their favour. If we order so, it would amount to undue enrichment granted to the complainants. Under these circumstances, it is held that the amount paid by the complainants to the original allottee plus amount paid thereafter to the opposite parties, shall be refunded to the complainants with interest, in the manner held above. Same is the situation in two other complaints titled as consumer complaint nos.360 of 2016 and 467 of 2016. In those cases also, the interest on the deposited amount, will be payable to the complainants therein, in the manner, referred to above.

31. No doubt, an objection was also taken by the opposite parties, in their written version, that since the requisite Court fees, has not been paid by the complainants, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone. The objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, does not merit acceptance. It may be stated here, that according to Rule 9A (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, if the total value of goods or services and the compensation claimed, is above fifty lacs and upto one crore, the amount of fee payable is Rs.4000/-. As per the aggregate value of relief claimed by the complainants, in the instant complaint, it fell above fifty lacs and below one crore, meaning thereby that the complainants were required to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-, as Court fees. It is evident, from the record, that a sum of Rs.4000/-, vide Demand Draft dated 05.07.2016, was deposited by the complainants. The correct fee was, thus, paid by the complainants. The objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

32. Once it has been held that the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited alongwith interest, from the date of respective deposits by them and compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, they are not entitled for additional compensation sought by them @Rs.50/-

per square yard, per month of the area of plot, for the period of delay in delivery of possession. Had the complainants sought possession of the plot, in question, only in those circumstances, they would have been held entitled to compensation/penalty for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the plot and that too, as per the settled law. In this view of the matter, prayer made by the complainants, in this regard, stands rejected.

33. No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties concerned.

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

Consumer complaint no.338 of 2016 titled as Dr.Paramvir Singh and another Vs. Unitech Limited and ors. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.56,92,832/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of payment made by the complainants i.e. from the date of payment made at the time of transfer/endorsement of the unit, in question, and thereafter onwards.

1. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 (two) lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.

2. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- (as prayed) to the complainants.

3. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months 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 @18% compounded quarterly, instead of @15%, in the manner explained therein and interest @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

Consumer complaint no.293 of 2016 titled as Rajnish Jain Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.81,26,610/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months 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 @18% compounded quarterly, instead of @15%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

Consumer complaint no.294 of 2016 titled as Rajnish Jain Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr.. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.81,26,610/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 (two) lacs, for causing mental agony and physical

harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

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

Consumer complaint no.295 of 2016 titled as Smt.Pooja Jain Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.85,46,825/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

Consumer complaint no.296 of 2016 titled as Sat Pal Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.85,46,825/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

Consumer complaint no.297 of 2016 titled as Smt.Aruna Jain Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.81,26,610/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

Consumer complaint no.298 of 2016 titled as Manish Jain Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.85,46,825/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

Consumer complaint no.299 of 2016 titled as Smt.Aarti Jain Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.81,26,610/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

Consumer complaint no.432 of 2016 titled as Rohit Vohra Vs. Unitech Limited and ors. The opposite parties (Opposite parties no.1 to 3) are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.40,41,918/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a. (as prayed), from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months 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 @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @12% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

Consumer complaint no.360 of 2016 titled as Ritu Raj Jalali and anr. Vs. Unitech Limited. The opposite party is directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.53,25,343/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a. (as prayed), from the respective dates of payment made by the complainants i.e. from the date of payment made at the time of transfer/endorsement of the unit, in question, and thereafter onwards.

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

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.

4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months 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 @16% p.a., instead of @13% p.a., in the manner explained therein 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.

Consumer complaint no.362 of 2016 titled as Brij Nandan Singh Walia and anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited. The opposite party is directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.51,74,452/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.

Consumer complaint no.433 of 2016 titled as Neeraj Dutta Vs. M/s Unitech Limited and ors. The opposite parties (Opposite parties no.1 to 3) are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.27,99,203/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

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

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

Consumer complaint no.467 of 2016 titled as Paras Chawla Vs. Unitech Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.85,16,117/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of payments made by the complainant i.e. from the date of payment made at the time of endorsement of the unit, in question, and thereafter onwards.

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

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

4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months 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 @18% compounded quarterly, instead of @15%, in the manner explained therein and interest @15% compounded quarterly, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

35. However, it is made clear that, if the complainants, in above cases, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants).

36. Certified copy of this order be placed on the connected complaint files.

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

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

20.10.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Rg.

Top of Form

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	432 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.10.2016

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.

2. Unitech Limited (Uniworld City Mohali), Marketing Office at SCO 189-190-191, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer.

3. Alice Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Basement 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite parties

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.Varun Katyal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.R.K. Dogra, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2. Opposite Party no.3 exparte.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.338 of 2016 titled as Dr.Paramvir Singh and another Vs. Unitech Limited and ors. this complaint has been party accepted with costs.

2. Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No.338 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.338 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

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

MEMBER

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

Rg.

Rohit Vohra v. Unitech Limited

Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh — 20.10.2016)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

Opposite Parties' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Rohit Vohra v. Unitech Limited

Comments