2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:- For the complainant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Shri Vishal Sharma, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: The complainant, Kulwinder Kaur, has 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 deliver the actual and physical possession of plot measuring 250 square yards duly allotted by opposite parties in Sector 113, Mohali, vide Share Certificate dated 18.11.2011 along with all facilities of developed colony as projected and proposed in the finally approved site plan with occupation certificate and completion certificate; ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the deposited amount from June 2013 i.e. the date on which the opposite parties were required to give possession of the allotted plot till the delivery of physical possession thereof; or in the alternative Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 iii) to refund 27,00,000/- i.e. the deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the dates of deposits till realization; iv) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation, for causing mental tension, harassment and mental agony to her; and
v) to pay 55,000/-, as cost of litigation. M.A. No.525 of 2020:
2. This is an application for issuance of direction to the opposite parties to supply copy of written statement. The same has been supplied and this application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed as such. Facts of the Complaint:
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant was in personal need of a house and for that purpose she contacted opposite parties for purchase of plot in March 2011. The complainant submitted Membership Form with the opposite parties and thereafter submitted an application form for allotment of plot. The opposite parties duly gave Share Certificate in favour of the complainant dated 18.11.2011, Ex.C/1. It is further averred that the complainant made the following payments to the opposite parties:- Sr. No. Amount in () Dated Exhibit
1. 2,25,000/- 15.3.2011 Ex.C/2
2. 3,50,000/- 2.7.2011 Ex.C/3 Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019
3. 2,50,000/- 3.8.2011 Ex.C/4
4. 1,50,000/- 14.10.2011 Ex.C/5
5. 1,50,000/- 18.11.2011 Ex.C/6
6. 1,75,000/- 3.12.2011 Ex.C/7
7. 2,50,000/- 8.2.2012 Ex.C/8
8. 1,00,000/- 24.5.2012 Ex.C/9
9. 1,50,000/- 25.5.2011 Ex.C/10
10. 2,50,000/- 8.2.2012 Ex.C/11
11. 50,000/- 8.2.2012 Ex.C/12
12. 2,50,000/- 23.4.2012 Ex.C/13
13. 1,00,000/- 24.5.2012 Ex.C/14
14. 2,50,000/- 14.9.2013 Ex.C/15 Total: 27,00,000/- It is further averred that the opposite parties issued a letter in April 2011, Ex.C/16, to the members mentioning therein that they had identified the land in Mohali and the cost of the plot would be 9,000/- per square yard. It has also been mentioned therein that the plots measuring 200, 250, 300 and 500 square yards were available for a tentative cost of 18 lakh, 22.50 lakh, 27 lakh and
45 lakh, respectively. It has also been mentioned that approximately 250 plots of various sizes were to be carved out for the purpose of allotment of plots to the members. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that after 30.5.2011, when the CLU will Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 be available, the development of the land will be started. The opposite parties further issued letter dated 12.6.2011, Ex.C/17, mentioning therein that next meeting would be held in Sector 113, Mohali, approximately 200 meters from Landran Chowk on the Sirhind Road on 26.6.2011 at 4.00 P.M. The complainant duly attended the said meeting and it was informed by opposite parties that they would complete construction at the site very soon and would provide physical possession of plot within next two years i.e. upto June, 2013. It is further averred that opposite parties allotted a plot measuring 250 square yards in Sector 113, SAS Nagar, Mohali, on 18.11.2011, vide Share Certificate and the complainant made the payment of 27 lakh to the opposite parties including development charges. The complainant continuously remained in touch with the opposite parties for getting the possession of the allotted plot but nothing was done by the opposite parties. Vide letter dated 9.7.2014 the opposite parties informed her that they had obtained the developers license from GMADA on 7.7.2014. However, the opposite parties neither completed the amenities at the site nor delivered physical possession of the plot till the date of filing of the complaint. The opposite parties have not even got the completion certificate and all other sanctions, clearances from the concerned Government authorities. The complainant is waiting to get physical possession of the plot since June 2013 but the opposite parties are only sitting over the money paid by them and enjoying the same Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 without passing any fruit to her. The complainant issued legal notice dated 29.8.2019, Ex.C/21 to the opposite parties for refund of deposited amount of 27 lakh but nothing has been done in the matter. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties the present complaint was filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to the opposite parties. Defence of opposite parties:
4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant is a shareholder and member of the opposite party-Society in which all the members have joined together to develop a housing complex consisting of like-minded members from media and other fields. The opposite party is not a Company rather it is a Cooperative Society and the complainant has been participating in the meetings of the general body of the Society which is final authority in a Cooperative Society as per Section 23 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, Societies Act). Opposite party-Society has been formed under a cooperative movement by its members and no individual is owner of the Society. Therefore, the complainant is a member of the opposite party-Society and is not a consumer under the C.P. Act. The total amount paid by the complainant as per receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15 comes to 16.50 lakh and, as such, the complaint lies before the District Forum and not before this Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 Commission. The complaint is beyond the statutory period of limitation of 2 years as per the provisions of Section 24-A of the C.P. Act and, as such, is time barred. The complainant has not come with clean hands and is trying to mislead this Commission as he has annexed forged documents and by placing such forged documents wants to gain unlawful profit by deceitful means. The opposite party- Society has purchased the land and also got the CLU of the land issued from the concerned authorities. These facts have been brought to the notice of all the members in general body meeting held on 26.6.2011 and 19.7.2013 in which the complainant had also participated and marked her attendance. It was brought to the notice of all the members that amount ranging between 20 to 22 Crore is still to be paid by many members including the complainant, who has to pay 18 lakh out of land cost and development charges and total amount which is payable by the complainant is 34.50 lakh, out of which she has only paid 16.50 lakh, as per receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15. So, at this stage physical possession of the developed plots has not been handed over as the development charges are to be paid first by all the members and only then development of land and other facilities can take place. On merits, the facts regarding the enrolment of the complainant as a Member of the opposite party- Society and issuance of Share Certificate are admitted. It has also been admitted that the complainant was allotted a plot measuring
250 square yards but no individual sale deed or sale agreement has Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 been entered as the entire land is in the name of opposite party No.1-Society. The cost mentioned in the complaint is tentative and the cost has now been fixed by the general body which included development and registration charges in the name of opposite party No.1-Society at the rate of 13,800/- per square yard according to which the complainant is to pay 34.50 lakh and still huge amounts are due against her. Without making the payment of development charges and outstanding amounts she cannot claim physical possession of the developed project. The amenities at the site can well be developed if the development charges are paid by all the members. Some of the members have not paid even land cost including the complainant amounting to 20 to 22 Crore. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Denying any deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Evidence of the Parties:
5. To prove her complaint, the complainant annexed with the complaint her own self-attested affidavit dated 7.11.2019 along with documents i.e. copy of share certificate dated 18.11.2011 as Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15, copies of letters Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-20, copies of legal notice and receipt as Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22. On the other hand, the opposite parties produced copy of resolution dated 29.12.2019. Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019
6. We have carefully gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them in support of those averments. We have also heard learned counsel for both the sides. Contentions of the Parties:
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant enrolled herself as a Member of opposite party No.1-Society only for the purpose of allotment of a plot to build residential house over it and she was entitled to ownership of one plot measuring 250 square yards in Sector 113, SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide Share Certificate dated 18.11.2011, Ex.C/1. The complainant paid 27,00,000/-, as per details given in para no.2 of the complaint, vide receipts Ex.C/2 to Ex.C/15 i.e. 25,00,000/- towards the price of the plot/cost land and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of development charges upto 14.9.2013. The opposite parties promised the complainant to hand over the fully developed plot in two years from the date of booking. The complainant paid the first instalment on 15.3.2011 and, as such, the opposite parties were required to give possession upto 15.3.2013. The complaint was filed on 4.12.2019 i.e. after the lapse of more than six and a half years but there is no sign of development at the site and there is no possibility of delivery of possession of fully development plot along with completion certificate and other promised facilities in near future. The opposite parties started receiving different amounts from the complainant and other Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 members even before getting the requisite permissions and sanctions from the concerned competent authorities and, as such, they violated various provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA). The opposite parties are neither delivering the possession of the fully developed plot nor refunding the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest despite issuance of legal notice dated 29.8.2019, which caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant. It has been prayed that there is deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and, as such, the complaint may be allowed as prayed for.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended on the similar lines as have been averred in the reply. The main stress of the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant is a member of opposite party No.1-Society, which is a Cooperative Society formed under a cooperative movement by the members of the Society under the provisions of Societies Act and no individual is owner of Society. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua opposite parties. The complaint is barred by time under Section 2A of the C.P. Act. Receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15 have not been issued by opposite party No.1-Society and she has only deposited a sum of 16,50,000/-, vide receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 against the total sale consideration of 34,00,000/- and a sum of 18,50,000/- is still outstanding against Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 her. Thus, the complainant herself is a defaulter in making the payment. Besides, this an amount of 20 to 22 Crore is still to be paid by many members including the complainant out of land cost and development charges and, as such, the physical possession of the developed plots has not been handed over as the development charges are to be paid first by all the members and only then development of land and other facilities can take place. It has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions:
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for both the sides.
10. So far as the plea of the opposite parties in their reply that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as he is a member/shareholder of opposite party No.1-Society, which is a Cooperative Society under the provisions of the Societies Act is concerned, the remedy available under the C.P. Act is an additional remedy under Section 3 thereof. The complainant is a consumer and she had applied for allotment of a residential plot with the opposite parties, which was allotted to her. The provisions of that Act cannot be made applicable to the case of the complainant. Honble National Commission in case ANIL PAHWA VS. BALDIP SINGH & Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 ORS. reported as III(2011) CPJ 424 (NC) observed in para 8 as under:-
8. With regard to the plea of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora vis--vis Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, we gave noted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner only to be rejected. The issue has been discussed on earlier occasions by the Consumer Fora and it has been the consistent view that irrespective of the provision under the Cooperative Societies Act, the Consumer Fora would have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, particularly in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Commission in the case of Smt. Kalawati and Ors. v. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. I(2002) CPJ 71 (NC) while discussing the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, in a consumer case of deposits from the public has held that where a Company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a consumer under CPA. Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 As such, it is held that the complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act as she availed the services of the opposite parties for purchasing the residential plot from them and that was the only purpose of her of becoming member of that Society. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Such an objection taken by opposite parties in their written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected. Once we have come to the conclusion that the complainant was allotted the plot in question, therefore, opposite parties are bound to either deliver the possession of the fully developed plot in question along with completion certificate from the competent authority and all the promised amenities or to refund the amount lying deposited with them along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
11. So far as the objection of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by time is concerned, admittedly the complainant made the payment of substantial amount towards the price of the plot in question to the opposite parties and the possession of the same has not been delivered to her till date nor the amount so deposited by her has been refunded despite repeated requests. It is now well settled that in such cases there is a continuous cause of action till the possession is delivered or the amount is refunded along with interest, compensation and costs etc. Honble National Commission in Navin Sharma (Dr. ) & others v. Unitech Reliable Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2016(2) CLT 457 has held that unless or until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. In para 8 of the said judgment it has been observed by the Honble National Commission as under:-
8. The first submission made by the counsel for the opposite party was that the case is barred by time. This argument was raised merely for the sake of cavil. It is now well settled that unless or until the complainants get the possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. This view finds support from this authority reported in Raghava Estates Ltd. v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012. Since neither possession has been delivered nor the amount deposited by the complainant has been refunded till date and, as such, in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authority, it is a continuous cause of action and the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation.
12. Now coming to the merits of the case. Admittedly the complainant was enrolled as a Member of opposite party No.1- Society and was allotted Membership No.63. She was given Share Certificate dated 18.11.2011, Ex.C-1, in which it is clearly mentioned Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 that the holder of this certificate is entitled to ownership of one plot measuring 250 square yards in Sector 113, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainant has placed on record copy of letter Ex.C-16 issued by opposite party No.1-Society to all its members in which the tentative costs of plots measuring 200, 250, 300 and 500 square yards have been given at 18 lakh, 22.50 lakh, 27 lakh and 45 lakh, respectively and requested its members to deposit the same in four stages mentioned in the letter. A further perusal of that letter reveals that interested members were asked to fill the enclosed application form along with initial deposit of 10% of the cost of the category of plot opted for by 25th of January 2011. The complainant opted for
250 square yards plot and deposited the initial deposit of 2,25,000.00; being 10% of the total price, vide receipt dated 15.3.2011, Ex.C-1. Thus, it is held that the total tentative price of the plot in question was 22,50,000/-. The complainant has placed on record receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15 regarding payment of various amounts to the opposite parties in respect of the cost of the plot in question and development charges, EDC charges etc. amounting to 27,00,000/-. However, the opposite parties disputed the payment of amount, vide receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15 and alleged that these receipts have been forged by the complainant. We have carefully perused the receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15, which reveals that signatures on receipts Ex.C-10, Ex.C-11, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-15 are of the same person who had put his signatures on receipts Ex.C-3, Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-8. Same signatures have been put on the power of attorney filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3. These signatures are clearly visible to naked eyes and are of one and the same person. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant has forged those receipts. Similarly signatures on receipts Ex.C-13 are same as on the receipt Ex.C-5. Similarly signatures on receipt Ex.C14 are same as on the receipt Ex.C-9. Moreover, the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to prove that the receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15 are forged one. They have simply made an assertion to this effect in their reply, which is not sufficient. Therefore, it is held that the complainant has made the total payment to the tune of 27,00,000/- towards the price of the plot in question including development and EDC charges. The initial payment was deposited by the complainant on 15.3.2011 and the complainant averred that the possession was promised to be delivered within two years i.e. upto 15.3.2013, which is otherwise a reasonable period for delivery of possession of such plot. Even the opposite parties did not deny this fact in their reply and they also admitted that the development could have been made upto June, 2013 had all the members paid the instalments in time. Therefore, it is held that the possession of fully developed plot was to be delivered within two years upto 15.3.2013. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the fully developed plot along with completion certificate and other amenities promised by them. This fact has also Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 been admitted by the opposite parties in their reply in which they specifically stated that at this stage physical possession of the developed plots has not been handed over as the development charges are to be first paid by all the members and only then development of land and other facilities can take place. It is the responsibility of opposite party No.1-Society to get development charges from all the members and to develop the plot and deliver its possession along with completion certificate and other promised facilities. However, they failed to do so in-spite of issuance of legal notice dated 29.8.2019, Ex.C/21 by the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties not only committed deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice but also violated various provisions of the PAPRA.
13. Section 14 of the PAPRA deals with responsibility of the promoter to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificate from the competent Authority, which reads as under:
14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate. Further, Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing), which is applicable to the properties falling within the Municipal Limits, provides as under: No person shall occupy or allow other person to occupy any new building or part of a new building for any purpose whatsoever until such building or part thereof has been certified by the local authority or of any person authorized by it in this behalf to be in every respect completed according to the sanctioned plan and fit for the use for which it is erected.
14. There is no evidence on record to prove that the project/plot, in question, or a part thereof has been got certified by opposite parties from the local authority, so as to deliver its complete possession to the complainant. No Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority has been produced by opposite parties on the record, which itself is violation of above reproduced Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing), reproduced Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 above. Even till today, no Completion Certificate has been produced before this Commission. Without issuance of these certificates in proper manner, a builder/opposite party No.1-Society cannot be said to be in a legal position to hand over possession of a particular property. Even no evidence has been produced to prove that all the basic amenities have been provided on the spot. The complainant cannot be made to wait perpetuity for the delivery of possession of the fully developed plot in question.
15. Opposite parties failed to give cogent and convincing reasons for non-development of the project and non-delivery of possession of the fully developed plot to the complainant within a reasonable time. It was also the duty of opposite parties to comply with all the formalities of the Government, before launching the project itself. It was the bounden duty/responsibility of opposite parties to complete the development of the project, in question, within a reasonable time. There is huge delay in delivering the possession of the fully developed plot along with all the basic amenities and Completion Certificate to the complainant. Due to non-delivery of possession of the plot, in question, during all these years, the complainant has been suffering mental agony, harassment and financial loss continuously.
16. 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 colony, but they failed to Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 produce on record any such permission. So, they violated Section 5 of PAPRA.
17. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, to make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.
18. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, they also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
19. As per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 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.
20. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of 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. There is not an iota of evidence led by opposite parties to rebut the averments made in the complaint by way of authenticated documentary evidence. The complainant has purchased the plot in question from opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the same in a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of land and development thereof in a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested her money with opposite parties, she would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that 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 Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 and would not be able to complete the project in question and deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresenting induced the complainant to book the plot in question, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by opposite parties in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of developing the project, as mentioned in Section 9 of PAPRA. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In these circumstances, the complainant is held entitled to possession of the fully development plot along with the Completion Certificate and all the promised amenities and compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount of 27,00,000/- during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 15.3.2013 i.e. the promised date of delivery of the fully developed plot till the date of actual delivery of possession of the fully developed plot in question. In case the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019 the possession of the above said plot, they shall return the whole amount deposited by the complainant along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization.
21. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to opposite parties-: 1(i) to deliver vacant physical possession of the fully development plot in question along with Completion Certificate from the concerned competent authority and all the promised amenities; 1(ii) to execute the sale/conveyance deed and get the same registered in the name of the complainant for which the expenses shall be borne by the complainant; 1(iii) to pay compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount of 27,00,000/- during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 15.3.2013 i.e. the promised date of delivery of the fully developed plot till the date of actual delivery of possession of the fully developed plot in question; 1(iv) to pay 40,000/-, as composite compensation, for mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant including litigation costs. Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2019
22. In case opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession of the fully developed plot, as ordered above, then in the alternative following directions are issued to them:- 2(i) to refund the amount of 27,00,000/- along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment; 2(ii) to pay 40,000/-, as composite compensation, on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant including litigation costs.