STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 150 of 2017 Date of Institution : 16.02.2017 Date of Decision : 25-Aug-17 Madhavi Bhatia wife of Manu Bhatia S/o Karma Chand Bhatia, presently r/o VPO Kachhwa, Tehsil and District Karnal, Haryana, through Sh.Karam Chand Bhatia (Power of Attorney Holder). Complainant V e r s u s M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Limited, 1 Floor, Near Matka Chowk, Madhyast Marg, Corporate Office at SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. .... Opposite Party :Sh.Mahesh Dheer, Advocate for the complainant.Argued by Sh.Suvir Sidhu, Advocate alongwith Sh.Raghav Gulati, Advocates for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 365 of 2017 Date of Institution : 28.04.2017 Date of Decision : 25-Aug-17 Kuldeep Singh Negi son of Sh.Jagat Singh Negi, R/o V.P.O. Pangi, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur (H.P.). Complainant V e r s u s M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Limited, through its Managing Director having its Corporate Office at SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director, M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Limited, SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. .... Opposite Parties :Sh.Munish Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.Argued by Sh.Ravinder Singh Dhillon, 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 two consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in both the cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. In both the complaints, the complainants are the original allottees. Refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest, compensation etc. has been claimed by the complainant(s), in these complaints. At the time of arguments, on 04.08.2017, it was agreed by Counsel for the contesting parties, that, in view of above, both the complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.150 of 2017 titled as Madhavi Bhatia Vs. M/s Emerging India Housing This complaint has been filed by the complainant, through herCorporation (P) Ltd. attorney. Attracted by various assurances given by the opposite party, through media, newspaper etc. qua salient and best features of its project namely Emerging Heights-III, Sector 115, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, the complainant decided to purchase a flat. It was booked on 03.04.2013. The opposite party made promise that possession of built-up unit, in a developed project, will be handed over within a period of 36 months, from the date of booking/allotment. Allotment letter was issued in her favour on 17.12.2013. Alongwith the said letter, payment plan was also annexed. She continued to make payments and by 26.08.2016, she had paid an amount of Rs.31,50,073/- towards price of the said flat. To show that above amount was realized, a document dated 26.08.2016 (at page 24), issued by the opposite party, admitting payments made and showing the mode/source of payments made, was also placed on record. It is her further case that besides the above amount, she had also paid an amount of Rs.35,000/-, towards service charges, vide receipt dated 17.03.2016, Annexure C-5. In all, she had paid an amount of Rs.31,85,073/-. The constructed area of the flat was fixed at 1279 square feet. Flat bearing No.E-104, Category B, Block-2, Tower E, in the said project was allotted to the complainant. To show that possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered within a period of 36 months, reliance was placed upon condition no.(N), attached with the allotment letter dated 17.12.2013, which reads thus:- In case the company fails to give possession of the property to you by the maximum time limits of three years after allotment, then the company shall be liable to refund the all amount with interest at the rate of 12%. All legal disputes shall be subject to the courts of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh only It was agreed that possession of the constructed unit will be delivered within a period of three years, from the date of allotment. In a way, possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before 16.12.2016. It was further stipulated therein that, in case, the opposite party failed to hand over possession of the unit, amount paid will be refunded alongwith interest @12% p.a. In the allotment letter, it was further stated that terms and conditions mentioned therein, are subject to Buyers Agreement to be signed between the parties. It is case of the complainant that after due date, to hand over possession of the unit, she contacted representative of the opposite party, with a request to hand over possession to her, however, she was put off, on one pretext or the other. To show above fact, she has placed on record, letters dated 17.12.2016 Annexure C-6 and 15.01.2017 Annexure C-7. However, request made failed to get any positive result. To say that even on the date when the complaint was filed, construction was not complete, photographs of the incomplete structure of the tower, in which the flat is located, have been placed on record, perusal of which clearly depicts so. By stating that in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, the opposite party has indulged into unfair trade practice and by not acceding to her request to deliver possession, it was also deficient in providing service, this complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of amount paid, with interest, compensation etc. In the reply filed by the opposite party, it was stated that the complaint has been filed, at the instance of Mr.Neeraj Chawla, brother of the complainant, who at one point of time, was associated with the opposite party. By using his position, he has made false documents. By making alterations, he got issued false documents, in favour of the complainant, by wrongly getting signatures of the concerned person. It was further stated that wife of Neeraj Chawla was also working with the opposite party. Her salary was adjusted to show payments made against the said unit. Attempt was made to prove above fact, by placing reliance of contents of email dated 10.04.2017, showing adjustment of salary of above named person, towards price of the unit. It was pleaded that, admittedly, possession of the unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months, however, original Clause N states that, in case of failure thereof, the opposite party will pay interest @12% on the amount received, for the period of delay. It was pleaded that Neeraj Chawla, brother of the complainant, wrongly included Clause (N) in the terms and conditions of the allotment, wherein, it was stated that if possession of the unit is not delivered within 36 months, the builder will refund the amount paid with interest. It was averred that the said Neeraj Chawla has committed forgery in making the record. It was stated that allotment is regulated by the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter. It was further stated that payment towards price of the unit was not made by the complainant, as per schedule, on account of which, construction was delayed. On merits, sale of the unit, is not disputed. Issuance of allotment letter dated 17.12.2013, is also not denied. However, it was stated that the complainant had not paid the amount, as claimed by her. Rather, she had paid only an amount of Rs.18,42,618/-. It was admitted that price of the unit was fixed at Rs.34,50,000/- plus other charges. It was also averred that the complainant never approached the opposite party, rather all transactions were done by her brother, namely Neeraj Chawla. It was stated that she had invested the money, for gain, in future and was not a genuine buyer, as such, would not fall within the definition of consumer. Payment of Rs.35,000/-, referred to above, was admitted. However, it was stated that the amount was not paid towards service tax, as alleged by the complainant, rather, the said amount was paid towards price of the unit. It was further alleged that by not making payment, in time, the complainant has violated terms and conditions of the allotment, as such, she is not entitled to get any relief. At the time of arguments, it was stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain this complaint. By making reference to the photographs placed on record, by the opposite party, it was stated that construction of the unit, was complete at the spot. Prayer was made to dismiss the complaint. In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in written version of the opposite party. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their cases and raised arguments, in terms of pleadings noted in earlier part of this order, which were heard, in detail. The first question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint or not. It may be stated here that according to Section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) a complaint can be filed in the State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, any of the opposite party, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or provided that in such case either the permission of the Statepersonally works for gain, Commission is given or the opposite party who do not reside or carry on business or have a as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution.branch office or personally works for gain, Further, as per Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act, a complaint can also be filed in the State Commission, where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises to the party, filing the It is necessary to mention here that perusal of almost all the documents placed oncomplaint. record, issued by the opposite party, in favour of the complainant, including payment receipts, clearly reveals that the same were issued from its Chandigarh office i.e. SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009. In these circumstances, it could easily be said that the opposite party was carrying on business and personally works for gain, from the said office at Chandigarh. Therefore, in our considered view, since a part of cause of action, accrued to the complainant, within the territory of Chandigarh, as such, the instant complaint can be entertained and adjudicated upon by this Commission, at Chandigarh, in view of the provisions of andSections 17(2)(b)
17 (2) (c) of the Act. The contention raised by Counsel for the opposite party, during arguments, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether, the complainant is an investor and did not fall within the definition of a consumer, under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, as alleged by Counsel for the opposite party or not. It may be stated here that there is nothing on record, that the complainant is a property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Since, the opposite party has leveled allegations against the complainant, as such, the onus lays upon it, to prove it, which it failed to do so. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objections raised by the opposite party, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the complainant being investor, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, 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 . Not only this, recently in a case titled as 316 Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar M GF Land , under similarLimited, Consumer Case N o . 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016 circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder, while holding 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. 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.
1. The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, even as on today, the opposite party is in a position to deliver possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects or not. It is pertinent to mention here that not even a single document has been placed on record to show that construction of the tower, in which the unit, in question, is located is complete and ready for offer of possession. Even the photographs placed on record by the opposite party, itself, reveals that construction of none of the tower is complete. Already a period of about four years has lapsed from the date of booking of the unit, but possession has not been offered to the complainant, despite the fact that out of total sale consideration of Rs.34,50,000/-, an amount of Rs.31,85,073/- i.e. about 90% has been paid to the opposite party. The stand taken by the opposite party, in its written version, that the construction work is complete and it is ready with possession does not appear to be correct. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project had been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite party. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan . Thus, in case, allChander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014 the development activities, had been undertaken, and construction of the flats is complete at the site, then it was for the opposite party, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but it failed to do so. At the same time, it was also required to produce on record, a copy of the occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authority, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove its case, but it miserably failed to do so. As such, an adverse inference can very well be drawn against the opposite party, that it has not obtained the occupation and partial/final completion certificates, in respect of the unit and project, in question, for want of construction and basic amenities. Qua this project, a similar question, as to whether, construction at the site was complete or not or that opposite party has obtained necessary approvals/sanctions to launch the said project, came up for consideration, before this Commission, in Sukhdev Singh Sidhu Vs. M/s Emerging wherein it wasIndia Housing Corporation, complaint case no.454 of 2016, decided on 25.01.2017, observed as under:- Besides as above, it has also come out from the record that the opposite parties had not obtained necessary approvals and sanctions from the Competent Authorities, before launching and selling the project, in question. Admittedly, the unit, in question was booked by the complainant in the year 2011 and the same was provisionally allotted to him, vide letter dated 18.04.2012. However, perusal of the record placed by the opposite parties themselves reveals that environment clearance for construction of flats, in the said project was issued by the Competent Authority, only on 05.06.2015; clearance from Fire Department was given on 10.02.2015; No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Punjab Pollution Control Board, was issued on 23.04.2015; Certificate regarding technical approval of the project by the Govt. was issued on 05.12.2012; NOC for discharge of sewerage treated water was issued on 10.04.2015; NOC from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence/Raksha Mantralaya was issued only on 03.07.2014; and NOC from Air Headquarters, New Delhi, was issued on 08.07.2014. Thus, it is clearly proved by way of documents, referred to above, that the project was marketed, launched and sold before getting approvals/sanctions from the Competent Authorities, which is an unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties. 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.765 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. Under above circumstances, it is held that even till date, the construction of Tower, in which the flat, in question, is located, is not complete. Not only as above, unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite party, is writ large. Perusal of payment confirmation letter dated 21.12.2016 Annexure C-4, makes it very clear that by the time, allotment letter was issued on 17.12.2013, the complainant had paid an amount of about more than Rs.10 lacs (19.03.2013 to 23.08.2013) i.e. about 30% of the price of unit, which was fixed at Rs.34.50 lacs. However, despite that, the Buyers Agreement was not got signed by the opposite party, from the complainant, at that stage, or even till the date of filing of the complaint or even till the date, arguments were heard. This act of the opposite party amounts to violation of the provisions of section 6 of the PAPRA, which 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) Furthermore, Buyers Agreement, on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., and that too, after receiving substantial amount, should have been executed within a reasonable time say about two to three months. 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 . Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-02.06.2016 T he 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. Buyers Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyers Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyers 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. Under above circumstances, it is held that by not executing Buyers Agreement after accepting more than 30% of the sale consideration, or even till date, the opposite party was guilty of providing deficient service to the complainant and also indulged into gross unfair trade practice. A plea was also taken by the opposite party that the complainant had made payment of Rs.18,42,618/- and not Rs.31,85,073/-, as claimed by her. It may be stated here that the complainant by placing on record receipt dated 17.03.2016 Annexure C-5, payment confirmation letter dated 26.08.2016 (at page 24 of the file) and also detailed payment confirmation letter dated 21.12.2016 Annexure C-4, has proved that she had paid an amount of Rs.31,85,073/-, towards price of the said unit. However, to the contrary, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite party, except bald verbal assertions. Even otherwise, had the complainant made payment of Rs.18,42,618/- only, then it has not been clarified by the opposite party, as to why, no reminder was ever sent by it, to the complainant, to make remaining payment, in respect of the unit, in question, if construction was complete, as alleged by it (opposite party). The opposite party could have placed on record the detailed accounts statement, maintained by it, in respect of receipt of payments, in respect of the flats sold to all the allottees, including the complainant, but it failed to do so. As such, in the absence of such documents, bald plea raised by the opposite party, has no significant value, in the eyes of law. However to defeat the genuine claim of the complainant, a plea was also taken by the, opposite party that since there was delay in making payments, on her part, delay was caused in completing construction of the unit. The plea taken has no legs to stand. Perusal of receipts placed on record makes it very clear that payments were made on regular intervals. When shell of the tower was complete, by that time, it appears that 90% of the payments due, stood paid. The opposite party had also raised similar objection in Sukhdev Singh and this Commission while brushing aside the similar plea, held asSidhu`s case (supra), under:- Under these circumstances, it is held that delay in construction and offer of possession of the unit, in question, was not on account of delay in making payments by the complainant (in the present case minor delay), but it was on account of non-obtaining of necessary permissions/sanctions by the opposite parties, in respect of the project, in question, from the Competent Authorities. Even otherwise, the plea taken up by the opposite parties to the effect that delay in offer of possession of flats occurred on account of delay in making payment by some of the allottees including the complainant, has no legs to stand, in view of decision rendered by the National Commission, in a case titled as Puneet Malhotra Vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd., wherein underConsumer Complaint No. 232 of 2014, Decided on 29.01.2015, similar circumstances it was observed that If some of the allottees had not made timely payment, it was for the opposite party to arrange the requisite finance either by taking loan or from its own resources or by liquidating Inventory at a . lower price In the present case, the opposite parties are trying to shift their deficiencies, on the shoulders of the complainant, by taking bald pleas, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, it is held that the opposite parties, in not offering possession of the unit, in question, even as on today, despite receiving substantial amount from the complainant, and that too, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances, amounted to deficiency in providing service and also adoption of unfair trade practice. Counsel for the opposite party made another attempt to defeat claim of the complainant by stating that her brother has forged the record, pertaining to allotment of the said unit. After looking into the receipts on record; payment confirmation letters written by the opposite party; and other documents, we are not inclined to accept above said plea. Firstly, no appointment letter of brother of the complainant has been placed on record. Payment of salary to him, has also not been proved. May be, brother of the complainant was an employee of the opposite party, there is nothing on record to show that any forgery was committed, as far as allotment of the unit, in question, is concerned. Even otherwise, if that was so, the opposite party would have got a criminal case registered against him, but nothing is on record, to show the above fact. Possession of the unit was to be delivered by 16.12.2016 and even till the date of arguments, offer of possession has not been made. Buyers Agreement has not been sent to the complainant for signatures. Necessary approvals are not available with the opposite party to launch and sell the said project. Under above circumstances, it can safely be said that the said plea has been taken by the opposite party, just to defeat the genuine claim of the complainant, and, as such, deserves rejection. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.31,85,073/-, deposited by her. It has been held above that the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, for want of construction; basic amenities etc. even as on today. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the unit purchased by her. Under above circumstances, prayer of the complainant to claim refund of the amount, actually paid, cannot be negated. Non-delivery of possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date, is a material violation on the part of the opposite party and amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession of units/plots by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar M GF Land Limited, wherein, under similarConsumer Case N o . 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:- I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest. Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech , wherein possession wasLimited, Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016 offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:- Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.
iii. Further, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First the National Commission, under similarAppeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, circumstances, held as under:- I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery. Under above circumstances, it is held that since there was a material violation on the part of the opposite party, in not offering and handing over possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date, or even till date, as such, the complainant is entitled to get refund of amount paid by her. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainant. It has been proved on record that an amount of Rs.31,85,073/- 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. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite party was charging heavy rate of interest @18% p.a., as per Clause E of the Allotment Letter, 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 , (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court) In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amountSCC 335). deposited by her, to the tune of Rs.31,85,073/- alongwith interest, from the respective dates of deposits till realization. No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties. For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner: - Consumer Complaint bearing No.150 of 2017. The opposite party is directed as under:- To refund the amount Rs.31,85,073/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. 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%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @15 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. -10-
iii. Consumer Complaint bearing No.365 of 2017. The opposite parties No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, are directed as under:- To refund the amount Rs.20,40,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (0ne) lac for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. 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%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @15 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. However, it is made clear that, if the complainants, in any of the complaints, referred to above, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants). Certified copy of this order be placed in connected file. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. 25-Aug-17 Sd/- [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/- -11- . (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 365 of 2017 Date of Institution : 28.04.2017 Date of Decision : 25-Aug-17 Kuldeep Singh Negi son of Sh.Jagat Singh Negi, R/o V.P.O. Pangi, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur (H.P.). Complainant V e r s u s M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Limited, through its Managing Director having its Corporate Office at SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director, M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Limited, SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. .... Opposite Parties Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. -12- MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER :Sh.Munish Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.Argued by Sh.Ravinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the opposite parties. PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.150 of 2017 titled as Madhavi Bhatia Vs. M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) this complaint has been partly accepted with cost. Ltd., Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 150 of 2017 shall also be placed on this file. Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint , be sent to the parties, free of charge.bearing No. 150 of 2017 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER -13-