STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 Date of institution : 26.05.2017 Date of decision : 25.10.2017
1. Rajesh Gori son of Shri Amar Nath;
2. Gita Rani wife of Shri Rajesh Gori; Both residents of Gori Building, Sadhoura, District Panchkula, Haryana. .Complainants Versus
1. Unitech Limited through its Managing Director, SCO No.189- 190-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
2. Unitech Commercial Tower, II, Block-B, Sector 45, Gurgaon City, Gurgaon-122001 through its Director.
3. Unitech Limited having its registered office at 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017. .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:- For the complainants : Shri P.M. Goyal, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: The complainants, Rajesh Gori and Gita Rani, have filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, C.P. Act) for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund 8,11,431/- to them along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony; and Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 iii) to pay 50,000/- as cost of litigation. Facts of the Complaint:
2. Brief facts, stated in the complaint, are that the complainants purchased a shop measuring 400.89 square feet (37.24 square yard), situated at Garden Gallleria, Universe City, Sector 106, Mohali, SAS Nagar from the opposite parties for earning their livelihood by way of self-employment, for a total consideration of 19,74,383/-. The Agreement to Sell dated 11.2.2011 (Ex.C-1) for the purchase of the said shop was executed between the complainants and the opposite parties. As per the version of the complainants, they paid an amount equal to 8,11,431/-, towards the sale consideration of the shop in question. The possession of the said Shop was to be given within 21 months from the date of agreement i.e. upto 11.11.2012. The complainants adopted the payment plan which is annexed with Agreement as Annexure-A and paid four instalments regularly. However, despite the lapse of more than 4 years from the date of signing of the Agreement till the date the excavation and the construction at the site has not been started. The complainants thereafter visited the site in October 2014 and found that there was no work which was started and the site was lying abandoned. No satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties and as such, the complainants were left with no other option but to opt for the refund of the amounts deposited by them. They also wrote letters dated 10.10.2014 and 4.11.2014 to this effect to the opposite parties. However, they failed to refund the amount so paid by them. Therefore, a prayer for a direction to the opposite Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 parties to refund the amount of 8,11,431/- along with interest, compensation and costs, as stated above, was made. Defence of the Opposite Parties:
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply, in which they did not dispute that the complainants purchased the shop in question from them, for a total consideration of 19,74,383/-. They also did not dispute that the amounts, as mentioned in the complaint, were deposited with them by the complainants and that the possession of the shop has not been handed over to them so far. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they averred that Agreement to Sell dated 11.2.2011 (Ex.C-1) was executed between them and the complainants and the period for delivery of possession was mentioned as 21 months from the date of that Agreement. However, the period of 21 months, so mentioned in the Agreement, was the tentative time period for the delivery of possession and was subject to force majeure circumstances. No date was ever committed by them for the delivery of possession of the shop. The Company could not hand over the possession due to reasons of Global meltdown of the economy worldwide wherein the foreign investors, as anticipated by them, refrained from any kind of investment in India and there was a total cash crunch throughout. They are facing extreme financial hardship due to recession in the realty market and all those circumstances were beyond their control. They are also facing problems with regard to providing electricity in the said area as P.S.P.C.L. (in short, Power Corporation) has been raising Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 objections on one pretext or the other. They were to provide electricity Sub Station of 66 KV. In order to give possession of some of the flats and plots already completed by them, they made a request to the Power Corporation to provide at least 1 MW connection to the Project in the year 2010 but it kept on raising objections regarding the compliance of various formalities and those were duly complied with by the Company. It further imposed the condition of Bank guarantee for providing of 1 MW connection, vide its letters dated 19.12.2014 and 2.3.2015. On account of the non- providing of the connection the rest of the development work and the amenities have been delayed. They are dependent on Power Corporation for the supply of electricity and other amenities in the Project. Despite all the odd conditions they are making every endeavour to complete the development work at the site and are making sincere efforts to hand over the possession of the shop to the complainants. It is alleged that as the complainants are themselves defaulters, they could not claim possession of the said Shop from the opposite parties as the builder raised construction on the amount of money generated from the payment received from the allottees but in case the allottee fails to make regular payment of instalments, it naturally hampers the construction work of the builder, who is then unable to complete the construction work on site. The construction work is in full swing and the possession shall be shortly handed over to them at the earliest. As per the Agreement, they have made themselves liable to pay compensation to the complainants for the delayed possession beyond the period of 21 Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 months but the payment of those charges are subject to any reason beyond their control and those are to be adjusted at the time of issuance of final notice of possession. The complainants are merely investors, who had invested in the shop for resale purposes. They could not resell the said property due to slump in the real estate market and, as such, they have frivolously sought this legal remedy before this Commission. The complainants had bought the said commercial unit for commercial purposes and hence cannot be contemplated as consumer. The complainants have not mentioned anywhere in the complaint as to for what reasons had they bought the said property. The complainants are already in Government service as per their own admission and a commercial unit is per se for commercial purpose unless it is proved by the complainants that the said unit was purchased for their livelihood. As they had purchased the said shop for commercial purposes, so they do not fall within the ambit of the definition of the consumer as per the C.P. Act. No cause of action has accrued to them to file the complaint and the same is not maintainable under the provisions of the C.P. Act. No deficiency in service can be attributed to them, as throughout they discharged all their services to the complainants in a bona fide manner. They also averred that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the Agreement dated 11.2.2011 was executed at New Delhi and the demand for the payment had been raised from their Gurgaon Office, which has not been impleaded as a party. Even the payments were made by the complainants through cheques; which were payable at New Delhi Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 and were deposited in their Bank account at that place itself. The facts, as narrated in the complaint, do not constitute consumer dispute as defined in Section 2(1) (e) of the Act. The complainants are seeking relief, which is not covered under the definition of consumer dispute. They raised issues relating to contractual matter arising out of the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the interpretation thereof and the same can be adjudicated upon only in civil proceedings. As per the Agreement they are entitled to reasonable extension of time in handing over the possession in case of force majeure circumstances. The complainants are seeking refund of the amount deposited with the opposite parties i.e. 8,11,431/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deposits till its realization along with compensation of 2,00,000/- and litigation charges of 50,000/-. The total claim of the complainants is less than 20,00,000/- and hence this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. Clause 17.2 of the Agreement to Sell stipulated that if the disputes, differences or disagreements could not be amicably settled, then they shall be finally decided by Arbitration to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs; being false, frivolous and vexatious. Evidence of the Parties:
4. For proving the allegations made in the complaint, the complainants proved on record affidavit of complainant No.1 as Ex.C-A and documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11. On the other hand, Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 the opposite parties proved on record the affidavit of their Authorized Representative Lalit Gupta, Ex.OP/A and documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-17.
5. We have carefully gone through the averments of both the sides, evidence produced by them in support of their respective averments and have heard learned counsel on their behalf. Contentions of the Parties:
6. Learned counsel for the complainants has vehemently contended that all the allegations made in the complaint stand proved from the affidavit of complainant No.1 and the documents proved on the record and some of those allegations also stand proved from the admissions made by the opposite parties. It is proved on the record that the complainants purchased the shop in question from the opposite parties and have paid the amount of 8,11,431/-. The Agreement to Sell dated 11.2.2011 (Ex.C-1) was executed between the parties and as per the same the possession of the shop in question was to be delivered within 21 months i.e. upto 11.11.2012. These facts have not been disputed by the opposite parties. It has been further contended that despite the lapse of more than 4 years from the date of signing of the agreement to sell till the date of filing of the complaint the excavation and the construction at the site had not even been started. The project is still lying abandoned and the complainants were not given any positive response to their query and the officials of the opposite parties themselves were not aware regarding the fate of the project. Therefore, the complainants were left with no other option but to opt Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 for the refund of the amounts deposited by them. However, the opposite parties failed to make the refund despite written requests and they were compelled to file the complaint. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them along with interest, compensation and costs.
7. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the period of 21 months as mentioned in the Agreement was the tentative period and that period was subject to force majeure circumstances and other circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties. From the evidence produced by them, it stands proved that the completion of the Project was delayed on account of the non-providing of additional connection of 1 MW by the Power Corporation though strenuous efforts were made by them to get such a connection for completing the Project. When such is the position, it cannot be said that the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service by not delivering the possession of the shop to the complainants. They were liable to pay the penalty, as stipulated by the Agreement, in case there were no such circumstances beyond their control. The complainants are not entitled to any interest on the amount deposited by them, as there was no such stipulation in the Agreement. It has been further contended that the complainants purchased a shop and the transaction is commercial in nature. As such, the complainants do not fall under the definition of consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. It was further argued that in view of the terms of Agreement to Sell there is a specific arbitration Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 clause and, as such, the complainants cannot avail the remedy under the C.P. Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. Consideration of Contentions:
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
9. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that this Commission has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint is concerned, as per the judgment of Honble National Commission in I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) (AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 ORS. v. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD) (NC) it is the value of the goods purchased or the services hired, which is to be taken into consideration and not the compensation for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the value of the shop is 19,74,383/- and besides this, interest, compensation and costs have also been claimed, therefore, certainly this Commission has got the pecuniary jurisdiction.
10. So far as the arbitration clause in the Agreement to Sell Ex.C-1 is concerned, this point has already been discussed exhaustively and decided by this Commission in M.A. No.1587 of 2015 in Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2015 (Jatinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Bee Gee Builtech & Anr.) decided on 08.03.2017 and, after discussing various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and National Commission, it was held that the remedy, provided under Section 3 of C.P. Act is an independent and additional remedy and Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement to settle disputes through arbitration will not debar the Consumer Fora, to entertain the complaint, filed by the consumer.
11. Recently also, the Larger Bench of the Honble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh Versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, the aforesaid objection raised by the opposite parties in the present case is rejected.
12. So far as the plea that the complainants have purchased the shop and the transaction is commercial in nature and as such, they do not fall under the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act is concerned, there are clear-cut averments made in the complaint that the complainants are Government employees and were looking for some commercial property so that they could put the same to use by using the said property for their self-employment. No cogent evidence has been led by the opposite parties to dislodge the said averments. The complainants might have purchased the shop for their settlement after retirement from the Government service. Merely purchasing a shop, which is commercial in nature, will not always lead to the fact that it is purchased only for gains. When a person takes the property for self-employment to earn his livelihood, Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 then certainly such a property will not come under the definition of commercial.
13. Honble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS (First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016) (National Commission), while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS
v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015 (National Commission) held the complainants as consumers, observing that the appellant in that case failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for profit. In the case in hand also, there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainants indulged in sale purchase of properties and that they have purchased the shop, in question, for further sale or for earning benefits. Therefore, the complainants have not invested in the shop for making profits.
14. Similarly, in Raksha Devi v. Yellow stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Others (Complaint Case No.99 of 2016, decided on 10.06.2016) State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh held that this is not a case that the complainant booked the plot to undertake the business on a large scale by employing number of persons. As per the specific Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 averment, the shop was purchased for putting the same to use for their self-employment. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G Industrial Institute 1995 SCC (3) 583, the complainant clearly falls within the definition of a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act. In the present case also, the complainants wanted to use this property to earn their livelihood by way of self-employment. Therefore, this objection raised by the opposite parties, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
15. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that identical matters have already been decided by this Commission in the following cases:
i) Consumer Complaint No.122 of 2015 (Sh. Puneet Chugh Vs. Unitech Limited & Ors), decided on 12.09.2016; ii) Consumer Complaint No.233 of 2015 (Naresh Kumar Vs. Unitech Limited & Ors), decided on 08.09.2016; and iii) Consumer Complaint No.197 of 2015 (Vineet Sood vs. Unitech Limited & others) decided on 10.11.2016.
16. The matter in the present complaint is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said complaints, so we intend to decide the present complaint in view of orders passed in above said complaints.
17. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainants purchased the shop in question from the opposite parties for a total sale consideration of 19,74,383 and paid 8,11,431/- in four instalments mentioned in para no.8 of the complaint. The Agreement to Sell Ex.C-1 was executed between the complainants Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 and the opposite parties on 11.2.2011 and as per the same, the possession of the shop was to be delivered within 21 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. by 11.11.2012. However, despite the lapse of more than 4 years from the date of signing of the Agreement to Sell till the date of filing of the complaint the excavation and the construction at the site have not even been started. The complainants visited the site in October 2014 and found that no construction was going on at the site and the project was lying abandoned. The opposite parties have not produced on record any document i.e. Completion Certificate or Partial Completion Certificate in respect of the project in question. They have not even produced any photographs of the project in question. When the complainants were satisfied that they were not going to get the shop in question, complete in all respects, they were very much in their rights not to deposit further instalments and claim refund of the deposited amount. It is a fact that it is mentioned in the Agreement, Ex.C-1, itself that the delivery of possession of the shop within that period was subject to force majeure circumstances and the opposite parties have tried to take the benefit of that proviso. The question arises, whether they have been able to prove on the record that the non-delivery of possession of the shop to the complainants within the period of 21 months was on account of force majeure circumstances or circumstances beyond their control?
18. The word force majeure has been defined in Concise Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyar as irresistible force or compulsion; circumstance beyond ones control. It was held by the Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 Honble Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1285 (M/s Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. M/s Shamji Kalidas and Co.) that force majeure means act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earthquake, tide, storm, tidal wave, flood, lightning, explosion, fire and any other happening which the lessee would not reasonably prevent or control.
19. To take refuge under the force majeure circumstances, it was incumbent on the part of the opposite parties to prove that the alleged circumstances were beyond their control. There may be worldwide recession and crunch in the real estate business, but the opposite parties were bound to fulfil their commitment under the Agreement for developing the Project and delivering the possession of the shop to the complainants within the agreed time. These were the circumstances, which could have been foreseen and should have been kept in mind while agreeing upon the terms and conditions so mentioned in the Agreement. If these are to be taken as an excuse to wriggle out of the condition so imposed in the Agreement, then in every case such a plea would be taken as an excuse for not performing their part of the contract, by the Developers.
20. The other such circumstance, which has been argued before us and which has been so mentioned in the written reply of the opposite parties, is that they had applied for additional connection of
1 MW to the Power Corporation in the year 2010 but it failed to provide the same; which resulted in the delay in the completion of the Project. It stands proved from the documentary evidence Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 produced by the opposite parties and which consists of the letter dated 9.9.2011 Ex.OP-2 that they did apply to the Power Corporation for the release of 1 MW connection on 28.9.2010 and the same was not provided and they had been repeatedly writing to the Power Corporation for the release thereof. It may be so, but the question to be determined is, whether the non-completion of the Project was on account of the non-supply of that connection of 1 MW? Lalit Gupta, Authorized Representative of the opposite parties made a detailed deposition in his affidavit Ex.OP-A regarding the applying of that connection to the Power Corporation and the non-providing thereof by the Power Corporation on one pretext or the other and that period of 5 years has already consumed for obtaining that additional connection. He also deposed in that affidavit that on account of the non-availability of that electricity the rest of the development work and amenities have been delayed, as they were dependent upon the Power Corporation for the supply of that electricity and further amenities in the project. He also deposed in that affidavit that every endeavour is being made to complete the development work at the site and sincere efforts are being made for handing over the possession of the shop to the complainants.
21. It is not the case of the opposite parties that they could not start with the Project on account of the non-providing of electric connection by the Power Corporation and according to them, the rest of the development work has been delayed. Mr. Lalit Gupta is not a technical person to make a statement that on account of the non- supply of electric connection the development of the Project was Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 delayed. Such a fact could have been proved only by a technical person, who was also required to disclose as to how such electricity was required for the construction work and that there was no other alternative with the opposite parties to complete the construction. Diesel generator sets, hybrid (Diesel Power) generator sets by using cycling rechargeable battery are other alternative methods available as a substitute to the electricity to complete the works. Such a circumstance cannot be said to be force majeure circumstance or a circumstance beyond the control of the opposite parties.
22. Keeping in view the above circumstances, we hold that the opposite parties have failed to comply with the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1994 (in short, PAPRA). As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land, on which such project is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days, notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a project, as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a project. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.
23. As per section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the project, but they failed to Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 produce on record any such permission. So, they also violated section 5 of papra.
24. As per section 9 of papra, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats/Space, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any such account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
25. Further, as per Section 12 of the PAPRA, if the builder fails to deliver possession of the plot/apartment/shop by the specified date, then the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the buyer with interest.
26. As per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub- section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment.
27. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The amount received from the complainants-buyers was required to be deposited in the schedule Bank, as per section 9 of papra and we wonder where that amount had been going. The opposite parties are not to play the game at the cost of others. When they insist upon the Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 performance of the promise by the consumers, they are to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the agreement. The opposite parties have failed to comply with the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop their project. Thus, the delay in not delivering the possession of shop, in question, within the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainants are to be suitably compensated.
28. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainants have made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the shop in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of shop and delivery of possession thereof in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainants. Had the complainants not invested their money with the opposite parties, they would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat/shop within a reasonable period. The complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the shop booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builders knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainants to book the shop, due to which the complainants have suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainants is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of complainants and it should be used for the purpose of building the shops, as mentioned in section 9 of papra. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainants for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainants have to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainants were at loss of opportunities. In such circumstances, ever increasing cost of construction and the damages for loss of opportunities caused which resulted in injury to the complainants, are also required to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation. In addition to that, they are also entitled to the compensation for the harassment, mental agony and wasting of time and money in litigation for redressal of grievance suffered by them, on account of the betrayal by the opposite parties in shattering their hope of getting the shop by waiting for all this period. In these Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017 circumstances, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them, along with interest and suitable compensation.
29. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the amount of 8,11,431/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of payment of different amounts till the date of payment; ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by them; and iii) to pay 20,000/-, as costs of litigation.
30. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the compensation amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER October 25, 2017 Bansal Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2017
Comments