Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of the Opinion: First Appeal No. 87 of 2020

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal was filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 03.12.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (the "District Forum"). The District Forum had partly accepted the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 3,91,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of each deposit till realization, pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs. 7,000/-. The District Forum had required compliance within one month of receipt of the copy of the order.

Factual background as averred in the complaint: The complainant applied for and was allotted an LIG flat (No.115-A, Second Floor) in the scheme called "3.56 acres Indrapuram (Master Gurbanta Singh Enclave), Jalandhar" by allotment letter dated 04.11.2008. He paid Rs. 3,91,000/- towards the price of the flat and the last instalment was to be paid on 08.08.2011. Possession was to be delivered within two and a half years of allotment but possession was not delivered even after eight years. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and sought refund with interest, compensation and costs before the District Forum.

Procedurally: The opposite party filed a reply raising preliminary objections including limitation, lack of cause of action and caveat emptor, and admitted receipt of amounts but contended that possession was ready and the complainant did not take possession. The complainant produced affidavits and documentary evidence (including allotment letter Ex.C-1, letter Ex.C-2 dated 30.01.2015, and payment receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8). The opposite party failed to lead evidence despite opportunities and its evidence was closed. The District Forum partly accepted the complaint and passed the reliefs noted above. The present appeal challenged that order. The Commission (President Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal) heard the parties at the admission stage and dismissed the appeal in limine.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the opposite party was liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of the allotted flat within the stipulated period and therefore liable to refund the amounts paid with interest and pay compensation and litigation expenses.
  2. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation or whether there was a continuous/recurrent cause of action that kept the complaint within time.
  3. Whether legal possession of the flat can be delivered in the absence of a Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent local authority.
  4. Whether the rate of interest and the quantum of compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum were justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Opposite Party's) Arguments

  • The possession of the flat was ready; the complainant did not take possession and in fact requested a change of allotment to another scheme because the allotted flat was far from the city.
  • The complaint is time-barred: last instalment was paid on 08.08.2011 so complaint should have been filed by 08.08.2013, but it was filed on 14.03.2016 and no condonation application was filed.
  • Many allottees are already residing in the scheme; a Trust Engineer's report dated 21.01.2020 allegedly shows the flat is complete and fit for habitation.
  • There is no provision under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 or allotment rules for refund except in certain circumstances (e.g., unsuccessful in draw of lots); thus refund relief was not permissible.
  • The District Forum's order was based on conjectures and surmises and the interest awarded (9% on total amount) was exorbitant.

Respondent's (Complainant's) Arguments

  • The opposite party failed to complete construction and deliver possession within the stipulated period (clause 7 of allotment letter required completion within two years) despite receipt of substantial amounts.
  • Even if the complainant requested change of allotment, the opposite party neither allotted alternative accommodation nor delivered possession within the stipulated or subsequent period.
  • The District Forum considered the facts and passed a well-reasoned speaking order; there is no ground for interference and the appeal should be dismissed.

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; an offer of possession is meaningless before completion certificate is obtained. The Commission relied on this principle to hold that the appellant's plea that possession was ready was untenable because no Completion/Occupation Certificate under Section 14 of PAPRA was produced to prove completion; hence possession could not legally be delivered.
Kaushik Guha v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IV (2018) CPJ-395 (NC) Where possession has not been delivered and the seller has not refused to deliver, the buyer has a recurrent cause of action until possession is delivered or the seller refuses/expresses inability to deliver; limitation will not necessarily bar the complaint in such circumstances. The Commission applied this reasoning to conclude there was a continuous cause of action because possession was not delivered nor amount refunded, and therefore the complaint was not barred by limitation.
Sipra Thomes v. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (CC No.398/2015, decided 19.05.2016) Earlier decision relied upon by Kaushik Guha emphasizing requirements to justify delays attributable to statutory authorities and the recurrent cause of action principle in delayed possession cases. The Commission relied on the reasoning in this line of authorities to assess whether the opposite party had justified delay and to determine the limitation issue.
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 and particularly beyond one year after the stipulated period. The Commission cited this decision to support the proposition that the complainant was entitled to demand a refund where possession was inordinately delayed beyond the stipulated period.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by examining the admitted documentary record and the procedural posture:

  • The allotment, payment and the payment receipts were admitted and supported by documents in the complainant's evidence (allotment letter Ex.C-1; letter Ex.C-2 dated 30.01.2015; receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8).
  • The opposite party failed to lead any evidence despite opportunities and its evidence was closed. The appellant's pleadings were therefore not supported by documentary evidence.
  • The appellant's miscellaneous application to lead additional evidence was dismissed on the ground that the documents sought to be produced appeared to have come into existence after filing the complaint and were already in possession of the appellant; hence those documents could not be produced belatedly.
  • The Commission emphasized the requirement of a Completion/Occupation Certificate (citing Section 14 of PAPRA and the Vision India decision) and held that in the absence of such certificate there is no legal basis to assert that possession was deliverable. It concluded there was no evidence of a Completion Certificate or other evidence to show the flat was completed within the stipulated time.
  • On limitation and delay, the Commission relied on the ratio in Kaushik Guha and related decisions to hold that where possession has not been delivered and the seller never refused delivery, the buyer's cause of action is recurrent and the complaint is not necessarily barred by limitation. The court found that the opposite party did not justify delay by producing records to show delays attributable to statutory authorities or otherwise.
  • Given the absence of evidence from the appellant and the presence of complainant's proofs showing payment and requests (including Ex.C-2), combined with legal authorities recognizing a right to refund where possession is inordinately delayed, the Commission concluded the District Forum was justified in awarding refund with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
  • The Commission also reviewed the quantum of interest and opined that the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the District Forum was not exorbitant and was reasonable in the circumstances.
  • Accordingly, there was no ground to admit the appeal and it was dismissed in limine.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal is dismissed in limine and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 03.12.2019 is upheld.

Direct effects on the parties (as affirmed by the Commission):

  • The opposite party (appellant) is bound to refund Rs. 3,91,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of each deposit till realization (as awarded by the District Forum).
  • The opposite party is to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs. 7,000/- as directed by the District Forum.
  • Procedural direction regarding the deposit made in the appeal: the appellant had deposited Rs. 25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal — Rs. 10,000/- of that amount is to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission (costs imposed while dismissing Misc. Application No.439 of 2020), and the remaining amount, with any interest accrued, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for release of that amount and the District Forum may pass appropriate orders after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

Implications for precedent and broader law: The decision applies and follows existing National Commission authorities concerning (a) the necessity of Completion/Occupation Certificates before offering legal possession and (b) the recurrent cause of action principle for delayed delivery of possession. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle; it affirms application of established precedents to the facts and upholds the consumer relief granted by the District Forum.

Opinion authored by Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President. Date of order: August 10, 2020.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Mahabir Prasad

    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 : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Surinder Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, the District Forum), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly accepted in the following manner: First Appeal No.87 of 2020 accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price of the flat i.e. 3,91,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of each 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 25,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of 7,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

    2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the Complaint

    3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that being allured by the representations made by the opposite party through advertisements regarding allotment of L.I.G. flats in its scheme known as 3.56 acres Indrapuram (Master Gurbanta Singh Enclave), Jalandhar, the complainant applied for allotment of flat therein. He was allotted LIG Flat No.115-A, Second Floor in the said scheme, vide allotment letter dated 04.11.2008. The complainant submitted all the relevant papers, deposited the necessary fee and completed all other formalities with regard to allotment of the flat. A sum of 3,91,000/- was paid by him towards the price of the flat i.e. 3,52,200/- and the last instalment was to be paid on 08.08.2011, as per payment schedule given in the allotment letter. Possession of the flat was to be delivered within two and half years from the date of allotment. However, the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the flat even despite lapse of eight years from the date of allotment. No valid or justified reason was given by it for delay in delivery of possession. The complainant had been running from pillar to post for taking First Appeal No.87 of 2020 possession of the flat, but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached the District Forum by way of filing the complaint, seeking following directions to them:

    a) to refund the amount of 3,91,000/- paid by the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization;

    b) to pay compensation/punitive damages of 50,000/-, under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act, for the mental tension, pain and agony suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite party;

    c) to pay cost of proceedings of the complaint i.e. 10,000/-;

    d) to pay 1,000/- on account of fee of 400/- paid for filing the complaint, besides postal expenses and expenses for copying and typing etc. Defence of the Opposite Party

    4. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complaint did not disclose any cause of action. The complaint was hopelessly time barred. The allotment of the flat was made way back on 04.01.2008 on as is where and situation basis. The complainant could take the possession if he wanted. However, he never sought possession of the flat and approached the District Forum only after 8 years of allotment. The opposite party is yet to receive any letter for possession from the complainant. No allurement was ever First Appeal No.87 of 2020 made to the applicants for the allotment of flats. The complainant applied for allotment of flat after being fully satisfied and scrutinizing the entire situation at the site. The complaint was bad on principle of caveat emptor. The complaint was frivolous and vexatious and was liable to be dismissed due to the suppression of material facts. The complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint. The complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, facts regarding allotment of the flat, in question, and payment of amount, as mentioned in the complaint, were admitted. It was pleaded that the possession was ready, but the complainant himself avoided to take the same. As such, there was no question of any delay in delivery of possession. It was further pleaded that instead of taking the possession, the complainant made a request to allot the flat in some other scheme; which was not permissible. It was denied that any request was made by the complainant for delivery of possession. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. Evidence of the Parties and Finding of the District Forum

    5. The complainant, in support of his claim, tendered his own affidavits Ex.C-A & Ex.C-B along with copies of documents i.e. allotment letter dated 04.11.2008 Ex.C-1, letter dated 30.01.2015 Ex.C-2 and payment receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8. The opposite party failed to lead any evidence, despite availing sufficient opportunities and, as such, its evidence was closed, vide order dated 25.02.2019. First Appeal No.87 of 2020

    6. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the complainant, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal. Contentions of the Parties

    7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage of the appeal and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

    8. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has vehemently contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the possession of the flat, in question, was always already, but the complainant did not come forward to take the same. In fact, he requested the opposite party to allot the flat in Guru Amar Dass Nagar Development Scheme or Bibi Bhani Complex, on the ground that the flat allotted to him was far away from the city. The matter of change of allotment remained under consideration with various offices and, as such, the complainant had not been taking possession of the flat, in question. Thus, there was no delay on the part of the opposite party in this regard. It has been further contended that the complaint was time barred, as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Last instalment was paid by him on 08.08.2011 and the complaint could have been filed by 08.08.2013, whereas the same was filed on 14.03.2016. No application for condonation was filed, along with the complaint. It has been further contended that large number of allottees are residing in the scheme, in question, and as per report dated 21.01.2020 of Trust Engineer, the flat allotted to the complainant is complete in all First Appeal No.87 of 2020 respects; which include construction work, water supply, electricity, sewerage, roads etc. and the same is fit for inhabitation. It has been further contended that the District Forum awarded exorbitant rate of interest i.e. 9% on the total amount paid by the complainant. There is no provision under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 or under the Rules of allotment for refund of the amount deposited by an allottee, other than to the persons, who have remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots. The District Forum passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the same is liable to be set aside.

    9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/complainant has vehemently contended that the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of the project/flat, in question, within the stipulated period, despite receipt of substantial amount towards the sale consideration of the flat. As per Clause 7 of the allotment letter dated 04.11.2008, the construction and development work of the flat/complex surrounding were to be completed within 2 years of allotment i.e. up to May, 2011. However, the project was not completed even up to the filing of the complaint, nor the possession of the flat was delivered. Even if the complainant requested the opposite party for change of allotment in some other scheme, even then neither the allotment was changed nor the possession of the flat, in question, was allotted to him within the stipulated period or thereafter. Therefore, the District Forum, has taken all these facts and circumstances into consideration and passed the well reasoned and speaking order. There is no ground to First Appeal No.87 of 2020 interfere in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

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

    11. Admittedly, the complainant applied for allotment of LIG flat in the scheme launched by the opposite party known as 3.56 acres Indrapuram (Master Gurbanta Singh Enclave), Jalandhar and he was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 24.08.2008 and was allotted LIG flat No.115A, Second Floor, vide allotment letter dated 04.11.2008 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 two and a half years from the date of allotment and thereafter possession of the flat was to be delivered. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid the amount of 3,91,000/- towards the price of the flat. This fact is also evident from receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction and development works at the site and deliver possession of the said flat within the stipulated period.

    12. For the sake of repetition, it needs to be mentioned that the opposite party failed to lead any evidence before the District Forum, despite availing sufficient number of opportunities and, as such, its evidence was closed by order. Thus, the pleadings taken by the opposite party in its reply have not supported by any documentary First Appeal No.87 of 2020 evidence. The Misc. Application filed by the appellant/opposite party for leading additional evidence has also been dismissed, vide separate order of even date, on the grounds that the documents sought to be produced appear to have come into existence after filing the complaint and the same were already in possession of the opposite party. So there is no evidence on record to prove that the construction/development works at the project site were completed by them within the stipulated period. Even the alternative flat was also not allotted, despite request of the complainant, vide letter Ex.C-2, and the matter kept pending for a long period. In such circumstances, the complainant was justified in withholding payment of further instalments. The plea of the opposite party that the possession of the flat, in question, was always ready, but the complainant did not come forward to take the possession is not tenable; as no such letter was issued by it to the complainant. Even otherwise, no Completion Certificate, as envisaged under Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) was produced by the opposite party before the District Forum or this Commission, to prove that the flat, in question, had been completed in all respects within the stipulated period or thereafter. In the absence of Completion/Occupation Certificate, the actual and physical possession of a property cannot be legally delivered. The Honble National Commission in its order dated 13.06.2018 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra also categorically held that legal possession cannot be First Appeal No.87 of 2020 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.

    13. In the present case also, there is no evidence on record to prove that the flat, in question, or a part thereof has 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. As such, the plea of the opposite party that the possession of the flat, in question, was ready is false and baseless.

    14. Regarding the point of delay in delivery of possession and limitation, the Honble National Commission in case 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 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:

    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 First Appeal No.87 of 2020 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 unable to accept the contention. It has to be kept in mind that a First Appeal No.87 of 2020 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.

    15. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted case, since the possession has not been delivered 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 amount deposited by him, along with interest was justified, on account of failure of the opposite party to complete the project/flat within the stipulated period. Furthermore, the Honble National Commission held in case 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.87 of 2020

    16. 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 and deliver possession of the flat within the stipulated period. As such, the complainant has been rightly held entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and compensation and litigation expenses. The said rate of interest cannot be said to be exorbitant and is quite reasonable.

    17. Accordingly, there is no ground to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

    18. The appellant had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Out of this amount, a sum of 10,000/- be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, towards costs imposed on the appellant, while dismissing Misc. Application No.439 of 2020. The remaining amount, along with interest, which has accrued on the total amount of 25,000/-, 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 August 10, 2020. (Gurmeet S)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Mahabir Prasad
    (Aug 10, 2020)