Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Surinder Pal

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jun 23, 2020
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

A/60/2020

Attorney(S)

ACTS

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

PUNJAB TOWN IMPROVEMENT ACT 1922

Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA)

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC

Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19

Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (in short, RERA).

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This order disposes of six First Appeals filed by the appellant, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, against similar orders dated 02.12.2019 and 16.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (the District Forum). The appeals arise from consumer complaints by various allottees who were allotted LIG flats under the Trust's 51.5 Acre Development Scheme (Bibi Bhani Complex) by allotment letters dated 28.01.2010. The complainants paid the full sale consideration for their respective flats but alleged that the Trust failed to complete construction and deliver possession within the stipulated period set out in Clause 7 of the allotment letter (two to two-and-a-half years from allotment). The District Forum had partly accepted the complaints and directed refund of the amounts deposited along with interest at 12% p.a., compensation (generally Rs.30,000; one award of Rs.50,000), and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000, within one month.

The Trust filed appeals before the State Consumer Commission challenging those orders and also filed miscellaneous applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to place additional documents on record (Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4). The Commission heard the appeals together because the facts and legal questions were the same across the matters. The Commission considered applications for additional evidence, the merits of delay in completion/possession, questions of limitation, entitlement to refund, rate of interest, and quantum of compensation and costs.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the appellant's miscellaneous applications for placing additional evidence (documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4) on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and Section 151 CPC should be allowed.
  2. Whether the complainants are entitled to refund of the amounts deposited because the Trust failed to complete construction and deliver possession within the period stipulated in the allotment letter.
  3. Whether legal/physical possession can be said to have been delivered in the absence of a Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority (as envisaged under Section 14 of PAPRA).
  4. Whether the complaints were barred by limitation or whether there was a continuous/recurrent cause of action such that limitation did not bar the claims.
  5. Appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the refunded amounts.
  6. Whether the compensation awarded by the District Forum was excessive and, if so, what is the appropriate quantum of compensation/litigation costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Jalandhar Improvement Trust)

  • The complaint was time-barred.
  • Construction was complete and possession of the flats had already been offered to the complainants (letter dated 18.05.2017); many allottees were residing and had electricity connections.
  • There was only a slight delay in offering possession which was beyond the Trust's control.
  • The District Forum awarded an exorbitant rate of interest (12%); at most some compensation could be allowed instead of full refund with interest.
  • The District Forum's order was based on conjectures and surmises and should be set aside.

Respondents' Arguments (Complainants)

  • The Trust failed to complete construction and deliver possession within the stipulated period under Clause 7 of the allotment letter (two years / two-and-a-half years from allotment).
  • Construction was not completed up to the filing of the complaint and work had stopped; thus the District Forum correctly considered facts and issued a reasoned order.
  • There was no ground to interfere with the District Forum's order; the complainants were entitled to refund, interest and compensation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra (National Commission order dated 13.06.2018) Legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of a Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority. The Commission applied this principle to hold that the Trust's alleged Completion/Occupation Certificate (letter dated 22.01.2020) was not issued by the competent authority and that, absent a valid Completion/Occupation Certificate, legal/physical possession could not have been delivered to the complainant.
Kaushik Guha v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IV (2018) CPJ-395 (NC) (relying on Sipra Thomes v. Bengal Unitech) On delay and limitation: where possession is not delivered, the buyer has a recurrent cause of action up to delivery or refusal; complaints are not necessarily barred by limitation where the seller never refused to deliver possession. The Commission relied on this reasoning to hold that because the Trust had not delivered possession nor refunded the amounts, complainants had a continuous cause of action and their claims were not barred by limitation.
Sipra Thomes v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (CC No.398/2015, decided 19.05.2016) (as relied upon) Concerning proof required to justify delays attributable to statutory authorities and the recurrent cause of action principle for possession claims. Referenced (via Kaushik Guha) to emphasize that delay attributable to statutory authorities must be proven with records and that extensive unexplained delay cannot be justified solely on that ground.
Shalabh Nigam v. ORRIS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Consumer Case No.1702 of 2016, decided 06.05.2019) Allottees have the right to ask for refund if possession is inordinately delayed, particularly beyond one year after stipulated period. The Commission applied this to support the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to refund where possession had been inordinately delayed.
FORTUNE INFRASTRUCTURE (now M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. v. Trevor D'Lim a & Ors. II (2018) CPJ 1 (SC) Damages awarded should not be excessive; principles governing award of compensation. The Commission relied on the Supreme Court's caution against excessive damages to justify revisiting the Rs.30,000 compensation awarded by the District Forum and reducing the monetary award.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Himanshu Arora & Anr. I (2018) CPJ 1 (NC) Compensation should be commensurate with actual damage suffered and established by evidence. The Commission applied this principle to conclude that the Rs.30,000 compensation was on the higher side and to fix a lesser amount by way of litigation costs/expenses.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission proceeded in stages, applying legal principles and cited precedents to the factual record:

  1. Miscellaneous Applications for Additional Evidence: The Commission examined the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to place documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 on record. It found that the documents pertained to periods after August 2017 and appeared to have been created subsequently "just to make defence." Many of the documents were held to be irrelevant to the dispute. The alleged Completion Certificate dated 22.01.2020 (Ex.OP-2) was issued by the Trust Engineer and not by the competent authority; the photographs likewise seemed to have been prepared later. On these bases the application for additional evidence was dismissed.
  2. Requirement of Completion/Occupation Certificate: The Commission noted that there was no Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent local authority on record to prove completion of the flat(s) so as to allow legal/physical possession to be delivered. Relying on the Vision India Full Bench/National Commission decision, the Commission held that legal possession cannot be validly delivered in the absence of a Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority. The Trust's internal letter dated 22.01.2020 was held insufficient.
  3. Delay, Limitation and Continuous Cause of Action: Citing Kaushik Guha (and Sipra Thomes), the Commission addressed the Trust's limitation defence. The Commission accepted the precedent that where possession has not been delivered and the seller has not unequivocally refused to deliver, the buyer has a recurrent cause of action (i.e., the cause of action continues until possession is delivered or refused), and therefore a complaint is not necessarily barred by limitation. Applying this reasoning and the Shalabh Nigam decision, the Commission found complainants were entitled to demand refund where possession was inordinately delayed, particularly beyond one year after the stipulated period.
  4. Entitlement to Refund and Interest Rate: The Commission accepted that the complainants had paid full sale consideration and that the Trust failed to complete construction and deliver possession within the contractual period (Clause 7). It observed that the Trust itself charged high penal interest rates for delayed payments by allottees (Clause 2 of the allotment letter specified rates up to 24% for delayed instalments). On that analogy, the Commission found the District Forum's award of interest at 12% p.a. on refund amounts to be reasonable (and in fact lower than rates the Trust charged) and upheld that rate.
  5. Quantum of Compensation and Costs: The Commission considered the District Forum's award of Rs.30,000 as compensation (and one instance of Rs.50,000) and found Rs.30,000 to be on the higher side. Relying on the Supreme Court and National Commission dicta (Fortune Infrastructure and DLF Homes Panchkula), the Commission applied the principle that damages should not be excessive and should be commensurate with actual loss established by evidence. Consequently, the Commission modified the relief, awarding refund with 12% interest and directing payment of Rs.22,000 as litigation costs and other expenses to each complainant, instead of the higher compensation initially awarded by the District Forum.
  6. Common Disposition for Similar Appeals: Because the facts, pleadings, and legal questions were the same across the six appeals, the Commission applied the same reasoning and modified each impugned District Forum order in the same manner for all the appeals.
  7. Return of Deposit Paid in Appeal: The Commission directed that the deposit of Rs.25,000 made by the appellant at the time of filing each appeal (and any interest accrued thereon) shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith, and that the respective complainant may approach the District Forum for release after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The appeals are partly allowed.

The Commission modified the impugned orders of the District Forum in each appeal to the following effect:

  • The complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him/her with the appellant (Trust), along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until realisation.
  • In place of the compensation previously awarded by the District Forum (generally Rs.30,000 or Rs.50,000), the complainant is entitled to Rs.22,000 as litigation costs and other expenses.
  • The miscellaneous applications for placing additional evidence (Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4) were dismissed.
  • The deposit of Rs.25,000 made by the appellant at the time of filing each appeal (and any accrued interest) shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum; the respondent may approach the District Forum for release in accordance with law after expiry of limitation period.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The Trust must refund amounts with interest at 12% and pay Rs.22,000 for litigation costs to each complainant whose appeal was considered; the District Forum will administer release of the appellants' appeal deposits as directed.
  • The Commission applied existing jurisprudence on completion certificates, recurrent cause of action for possession claims, limitation, and proportionality of damages. The opinion does not state that it establishes a new legal precedent; rather it relies upon and applies earlier authorities to the facts of these appeals.

Signed: JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT. Date: June 23, 2020.

Show all summary ...

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 appellant : Sh. S.C. Pathela, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of the above noted six (6) First Appeals filed by appellant-Jalandhar Improvement Trust against the similar orders dated 02.12.2019 and 16.12.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, the District Forum), as the questions of law and facts involved in all the appeals are same. Facts are taken from First Appeal No.60 of 2020.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. First Appeal No.60 of 2020 Misc. Application No.354 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence)

3. This application has been filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 (colly.) by way of additional evidence.

4. Heard. First Appeal No.60 of 2020

5. The complaint before the District Forum was filed on 14.07.2017, whereas the documents sought to be produced by the appellant, by way of additional evidence, pertain to the period beyond August 2017 and, as such, the same have been created afterwards just to make defence. Even otherwise, most of the documents have no relevancy with the dispute involved in the complaint, which is the subject matter of the appeal. The alleged Completion Certificate dated 22.01.2020 Ex.OP-2 is issued by Trust Engineer of Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and not by the competent authority. The photographs also seem to be prepared later on and, as such, the same cannot be allowed to be produced in additional evidence. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant is dismissed. Main Appeal/Facts of Complaint

6. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.89-A, First Floor by the opposite party under its 51.5 Acre Development Scheme (Bibi Bhani Complex), Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Jalandhar; vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. The complainant paid the entire sale consideration of 5,87,942/- and completed all the requisite formalities. As per Clause-

7 of the allotment letter, the construction and development work of the flat/complex were to be completed within 2 years of allotment. However, the opposite party failed to complete the project and to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period, despite receipt of entire sale consideration thereof. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant First Appeal No.60 of 2020 approached the District Forum by way of filing the complaint, seeking following directions to it:

i) to refund the amount of 5,87,942/- deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization; ii) to pay 50,000/- as compensation/punitive damages under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; iii) to pay 10,000/-, as cost of proceedings/litigation expenses; and iv) to pay 1,000/- as expenses for depositing complaint fee of 500/- etc. Defence of the Opposite Party

7. Upon notice, opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, in view of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (in short, RERA). The said Act provides that any person, whose complaint in respect of the matters covered under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 thereof is pending before the District Forum, State Commission or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on or before the commencement of the Act, it may with the permission of such Forum/ Commission, as the case may be, withdraw such complaint and file an application before the Adjudication Officer under the above said Act. The complainant concealed/suppressed material facts. He himself defaulted by not taking possession of the flat, in question, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He neither wrote any letter to the opposite party, nor ever visited it for taking the possession. Rather, the opposite party wrote letter dated 18.05.2017 to him to take First Appeal No.60 of 2020 possession on 25.05.2017 at 10.00 A.M. However, instead of taking the possession, he filed the complaint seeking refund of the deposited amount. The opposite party is a statutory body under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and the allotments made by the opposite party are subject to provisions of the Sale Agreement and the Act, rules and other relevant Government instructions and the allottees are bound by the same. There is no provision in the Sale Agreement dated 19.02.2010 executed between the parties or in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and Rules for refund of the sale price to the successful allottee. The scheme was self-financing scheme, wherein payments, as made by the allottees, were used to finance the construction works. There were two options for deferred payment of the price of the flat to be divided in instalments payable in 2-1/2 and 5 years. On merits, allotment of the flat, in question, in favour of the complainant and deposit of the amount, as mentioned in the complaint, was admitted. Other similar pleas, as raised in the preliminary objections, were reiterated and denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint, dismissal thereof was prayed. Evidence of the Parties and Finding of the District Forum

8. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his two affidavits complainant Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B, along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19. The opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer, Ex.O-A, along with copies of documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3. First Appeal No.60 of 2020

9. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly accepted the complaint, vide the impugned order dated 16.12.2019, in the following manner: .accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 5,87,942/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of 30,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

10. Hence, the present appeal. Contentions of the Parties

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent/complainant as well as the record.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has vehemently contended that the complaint was time barred. The scheme of the appellant is complete in all respects, as per photographs annexed with the appeal and the possession of the flat, in question, was already offered to the complainant, vide letter dated 18.05.2017. Large number of allottees are residing in the flats, who have also obtained electric connections from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. There was slight delay in offering possession, but the same was beyond the control of the opposite party. It has been further contended that the District Forum awarded exorbitant rate of interest i.e. 12% and instead of refund of the deposited amount along with interest, only some compensation could have been allowed. The District Forum failed to consider all these facts and passed the First Appeal No.60 of 2020 impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the same is liable to be set aside, by way of allowing the appeal.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has vehemently contended that the opposite party failed to complete the construction of the project/flat, in question, within the stipulated period, despite receipt of entire sale consideration from the complainant. As per Clause 7 of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, the construction and development work of the flat/complex surrounding were to be completed within 2 years of allotment i.e. up to July 2012. However, the project was not completed even up to the filing of the complaint. In fact, the construction was stopped and no progress was being made at the site. Therefore, the District Forum, while passing the impugned order, has taken all these facts and circumstances into consideration and passed the well reasoned and speaking order. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

15. Admittedly, the complainant applied for allotment of LIG flat in the above noted scheme of the opposite party and he was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 16.08.2009 and was allotted LIG flat No.89-A, First Floor, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, Ex.C-

1. As per Clause-7 of the allotment letter, the construction of the flat and development activities were to be completed and the payment of entire instalments towards sale consideration were to be made within First Appeal No.60 of 2020 two and a half years from the date of allotment and thereafter possession of the flat was to be delivered, after executing agreement with the opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had paid all the instalments, as the opposite party has not denied the averment of the complainant regarding deposit of entire sale price, in its reply or appeal. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and development works at the site within the stipulated period. The plea of the opposite party that the construction of the flat, in question, was completed and the complainant was offered possession of the flat, vide letters dated 18.05.2017, is not tenable; as the opposite party was bound to complete the development works and construction of the flat, in question, within 2-1/2 years from the date of issuance of allotment letter dated 28.01.2010 i.e. up to 28.07.2012. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no Completion Certificate, as envisaged under Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) has been produced by the opposite party, either before the District Forum or this Commission to prove that the flat, in question, has been completed in all respects. It also needs to be mentioned that the so-called Completion/Occupation Certificate in the shape of letter dated 22.01.2020, which is not issued by the competent authority, has been declined to be produced, while dismissing the above said application of the appellant. In the absence of Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, the actual and physical possession of a property cannot be delivered legally. The Honble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India First Appeal No.60 of 2020 Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) categorically held that legal possession cannot be delivered in the absence of Completion Certificate issued by the Competent Authority. It was held in Para No.5 as follows:

5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at any time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat. The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite completion certificate had not been obtained by that date.

16. There is no evidence on record to prove that the flat, in question, or a part thereof had been got certified by the opposite party from the local/competent authority, so as to deliver its complete possession to the complainant for his use and occupation. By not producing Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, the opposite party committed violation of Section 14 of PAPRA.

17. Regarding the point of delay in delivery of possession and limitation, the Honble National Commission in its decision in Kaushik Guha v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IV (2018) CPJ-395 (NC) relied upon its earlier decision in CC No.398/2015 (Sipra Sipra Thomes v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) decided on 19.05.2016, in which it was held in Para No.4 to 6 as under: First Appeal No.60 of 2020

4. The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party on identical ground. Though the booking made by the complainants as well as the Buyers Agreement with them has been admitted, it is alleged that there was delay in grant of statutory approvals and permissions related to infrastructural work such as road, electricity, water and sewerage which were beyond the control of the opposite party. It is further stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that in the event of delay, the complainants are entitled only to the compensation agreed in the Buyers Agreement which is Rs. 5/- per sq. feet of the super area per month. Another plea taken by the opposite party is that the complainant is barred by limitation prescribed under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. The first question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether the opposite party has been able to justify the delay in construction of the flats which it had agreed to sell to the complainants. Though it is alleged that there was delay in obtaining the approvals and permissions required for infrastructural works such as road, electricity, water and sewerage, there is no evidence to prove that the alleged delay occurred on account of reasons not attributable to or beyond the control of the opposite party. In order to justify the delay on the aforesaid ground, the opposite party was required to disclose the dates on which it applied for the requisite permission and the date on which the said permission was granted. It was also required to place on record the entire correspondence between it and the concerned statutory authority in order to demonstrate that the said delay was attributable solely to the concerned statutory authority and not to any deficiency or defect on its part in seeking such a permission from the concerned statutory authority. Moreover, the opposite party was also required to specify how much was the delay attributable to the time taken by the statutory authorities in granting approvals for infrastructural services. Only then, it could have justified the delay to the extent it was attributable solely to the concerned statutory authority. In this regard, it has to be kept in mind that the delay in these cases is not of just a few months. Here, they were required to deliver the possession by March 2010/September 2011 and about 5/6 years from the possession deadline have already expired. Therefore, even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that there was delay of a few months on the part of the concerned statutory authorities in granting approvals for infrastructural services, that cannot justify the delay of five - six years.

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the booking having been made way back in the year 2007/2008 and the date stipulated in the Buyers Agreement for delivering possession also having expired more than two years before these complaints were filed, the said complaints are clearly barred by limitation. We however, are First Appeal No.60 of 2020 unable to accept the contention. It has to be kept in mind that a person books a residential flat for the purpose of having a roof over his head and not for the purpose of claiming refund with compensation at a later date. Therefore, the attempt of the buyer would be to get possession of the residential flat booked by him even if there is some delay in obtaining the said possession. Therefore, he would like to wait for the buyer to deliver till the time either the seller refuses to deliver the possession or till he loses all hopes of getting possession and therefore does not want to wait any more for the seller to deliver the possession of the flat. In such a case, the buyer, in our opinion, has a recurrent cause of action till the time either the seller delivers the possession or refuses to deliver possession, or expresses his inability to construct the flat sold by him. The cause of action may also arise earlier if the buyer asks the builder to refund the amount paid by him. In that case, if he does not approach the Consumer Forum within two years of demanding the refund, the claim may become barred by the limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. However, as far as these cases are concerned, considering that the opposite party never refused to deliver possession to the complainant, it would be difficult for us to say that the complaints are barred by limitation.

18. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted case, since the possession of the flat had not been delivered within the stipulated period nor the amount has been refunded, so there is continuous cause of action in favour of the complainant. However, the complainant cannot be made to wait for delivery of possession for an indefinite period and his demand for refund of the deposited amount, along with interest was justified, on account of failure of the opposite party to complete the project/flat within the stipulated period. The Honble National Commission held in Consumer Case No. 1702 of 2016 (Shalabh Nigam v. ORRIS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) decided on 06.05.2019 that the allottees have right to ask for refund, if the possession is inordinately delayed and particularly beyond one year after stipulated period. First Appeal No.60 of 2020

19. As per Clause-2 of the allotment letter, Ex.C-16, in case of delay in depositing the instalments, the allottee was liable to pay interest at the rates of 18%, 20%, 22% and 24% for the first, second, third and fourth month respectively. When the opposite party itself is charging interest at such heavy rates on account of delay in payment of instalments, then on the same analogy, it is also liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant, on account of delay in delivery of possession of the flat beyond the agreed period. The District Forum rightly awarded interest at the rate of 12% on the deposited amount, which is much less than the interest rate being charged by the opposite party, as per above Clause.

20. In view of my above discussion as well as the law laid down in the above noted cases, it is clear that the opposite party failed to complete the construction of the flat, in question, and development works at the site within the stipulated period. As such, the complainant has been rightly held entitled to refund of the amount deposited by her, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the compensation of 30,000/- is on higher side. Honble Supreme Court in case FORTUNE INFRASTRUCTURE (NOW KNOWN AS M/S HICON INFRASTRUCTURE) & ANR. v. TREVOR DLIMA & ORS. II (2018) CPJ 1 (SC) held that damages should not be excessive. Honble National Commission in case DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Himanshu Arora & Anr. I (2018) CPJ 1 (NC) held that the amount of compensation should commensurate to actual damage suffered by the claimant, which is also to be established by evidence. Therefore, it is held that, besides the amount to be refunded along with First Appeal No.60 of 2020 interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, the complainant is entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

22. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. First Appeal No.61 of 2020 Misc. Application No.359 of 2019 (Addl. Evidence)

23. In view of the reasons given in Misc. Application No.354 of 2020 in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this application is dismissed. Main Appeal

24. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.80-A, Ground Floor, in the above said scheme of the opposite party, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, Ex.C-1. The complainant paid the entire price of the said flat i.e. 6,26,422/- to the opposite party and this fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite First Appeal No.60 of 2020 party in its reply or appeal. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per Clause-7 of the allotment letter. Other averments are similar to that of the complaint, involved in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar prayer has been made. The opposite party filed reply on the lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar documents have been filed and similar arguments have been raised by the parties.

25. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019, in the following manner: accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 6,26,422/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of 30,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

26. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

27. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

28. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has First Appeal No.60 of 2020 accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period, in accordance with law. First Appeal No.62 of 2020 Misc. Application No.362 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence)

29. In view of the reasons given in Misc. Application No.354 of 2020 in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this application is dismissed. Main Appeal

30. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.77, Ground Floor, in the above said scheme of the opposite party, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, Ex.C-1. The complainant paid the entire price of the said flat i.e. 6,01,800/- to the opposite party and this fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party in its reply or appeal. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per Clause-7 of the allotment letter. Other averments are similar to that of the complaint, involved in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar prayer has been made. The opposite party filed reply on the lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar documents have been filed and similar arguments have been raised by the parties.

31. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019, in the following manner: First Appeal No.60 of 2020 accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 6,01,800/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of 30,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

32. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

33. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

34. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. First Appeal No.63 of 2020 Misc. Application No.365 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence)

35. In view of the reasons given in Misc. Application No.354 of 2020 in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this application is dismissed. First Appeal No.60 of 2020 Main Appeal

36. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.65-A, Ground Floor, in the above said scheme of the opposite party, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, Ex.C-1. The complainant paid the entire price of the said flat i.e. 6,01,800/- to the opposite party and this fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party in its reply or appeal. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per Clause-7 of the allotment letter. Other averments are similar to that of the complaint, involved in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar prayer has been made. The opposite party filed reply on the lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar documents have been filed and similar arguments have been raised by the parties.

37. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019, in the following manner: accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 6,01,800/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of 30,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

38. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

39. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to the refund of First Appeal No.60 of 2020 the amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

40. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. First Appeal No.64 of 2020 Misc. Application No.369 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence)

41. In view of the reasons given in Misc. Application No.354 of 2020 in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this application is dismissed. Main Appeal

42. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.21-A, Second Floor, in the above said scheme of the opposite party, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, Ex.C-1. The complainant paid the entire price of the said flat i.e. 6,67,983/- to the opposite party and this fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party in its reply or appeal. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per Clause-7 of the allotment letter. Other averments are similar to that of the complaint, involved in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar prayer has been made. First Appeal No.60 of 2020 The opposite party filed reply on the lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar documents have been filed and similar arguments have been raised by the parties.

43. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019, in the following manner: accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 6,67,983/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of 30,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

44. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

45. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

46. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. First Appeal No.60 of 2020 First Appeal No.65 of 2020 Misc. Application No.372 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence)

47. In view of the reasons given in Misc. Application No.354 of 2020 in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this application is dismissed. Main Appeal

48. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted LIG flat No.5-A, Ground Floor, in the above said scheme of the opposite party, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2010, Ex.C-1. The complainant paid the entire price of the said flat i.e. 6,01,800/- to the opposite party and this fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party in its reply or appeal. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period, as per Clause-7 of the allotment letter. Other averments are similar to that of the complaint, involved in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar prayer has been made. The opposite party filed reply on the lines of its reply, as given in First Appeal No.60 of 2020. Similar documents have been filed and similar arguments have been raised by the parties.

49. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order dated 02.12.2019, in the following manner: accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 6,01,800/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits, till realization and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of 50,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. First Appeal No.60 of 2020

50. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

51. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.60 of 2020, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by her, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to 22,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses.

52. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT June 23, 2020. (Gurmeet S)

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x