FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. 138 of 2020 Date of Institution : 08.06.2020 Date of Reserve : 12.01.2021 Date of Decision : 03.02.2021 Sunny Dhuria, aged 34 years, son of Ashok Kumar Dhuria, resident of 179, Veer Colony, Bathinda. ..Complainant Versus
1. M/s Paradigm Business Ventures (The Hermitage Park), S.C.O. No.4-5, Hollywood Plaza, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali through its authorized representative.
2. M/s Paradigm Business Ventures (The Hermitage Park), S.C.O. No.4-5, Hollywood Plaza, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali through its partners Vijay Kumar Jindal and D.R.Singla.
3. M/s Paradigm Business Ventures (The Hermitage Park), K. Area Road, near Bouli Sahib Gurudwara, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali through its Manager Operation / authorized representative (email info@thehermitagepark.com, www.thehermitagepark.com.
4. State Bank of India, S.C.O. No.398, Sector 20, Panchkula through its Branch Manager. Email at : sbi10374@sbi.co.in and contactcentre@sbi.co.in ..Opposite parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.Mukand Gupta, Advocate For opposite parties No.1to3 : Sh.Ambrish Sharma, Advocate For opposite party No.4 : None Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) seeking following directions against the opposite parties:
i) to refund the amount of Rs.44,95,489/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization; ii) to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and torture; iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses; and iv) any other order which this Commission may deem fit and proper be passed. Facts of the Complaint
2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the opposite parties floated a housing project called the Hermitage Park at Zirakpur, District Mohali, which was promoted by the Paradigm Ventures and claimed to provide world class facilities in the flats such as earthquake resistance RCC structure, apart from good flooring etc. The complainant being allured by the advertisement issued by the opposite parties applied for allotment of one 3 BHK flat with the opposite parties, which was allotted in the month of January 2017. The complainant already paid an amount of Rs.44,95,489/- on different dates to the opposite parties against the total cost of Rs.51,07,700/- but later on the complainant sought bigger flat of 4 BHK instead of 3 BHK and made request to the Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 opposite parties to swap the flat from 3 BHK to 4 BHK as he is ready to pay the excess differential amount. The opposite parties agreed and adjusted the amount already paid. Thereafter, the complainant entered into a separate Flat Buyers Agreement with the opposite parties. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.01.2017 and thereafter Rs.3,95,000/- on 20.03.2017 with the opposite parties. Thereafter, an allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 22.03.2017 wherein he was allotted a flat No.402, 4th Floor, in Tower T-05 in The Hermitage Park Housing Project at Zirakpur. As per the terms and conditions of the Flat Buyers Agreement, opposite parties were to deliver the possession of the flat complete in all respects after obtaining Completion / Occupation Certificate by September, 2019. The complainant chose Construction Linked Plan. Since the complainant has raised the home loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from opposite party No.4, the opposite parties have given permission to mortgage the said flat in favour of opposite party No.4-Bank vide mortgage letter dated 23.12.2017. Out of the sanctioned home loan of Rs.45,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.40,00,489/- was disbursed by the opposite party No.4 to opposite parties No.1 to 3 against the receipt dated 13.04.2017. The total sale consideration of the 4 BHK flat was Rs.62,32,700/-, which includes B.S.P., Power back up, club charges and IFMS charges. As per the Construction Linked Plan, the complainant paid the amount as and when demanded and never refused to pay any amount. After payment of Rs.44,95,489/- no demand was ever raised by the opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 and stopped the construction in between without any reason and justification. On enquiry, it was informed by the opposite parties that they have not received the requisite permissions from the competent authority to complete the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant. The complainant has already paid 72% of the total cost of the flat. As per Clause 7.1 of the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties on 13.11.2017, the opposite parties were required to handover the possession of the flat by 30.09.2019 but neither the construction was completed as per the specifications nor delivered the possession of the flat to the complainant. The complainant on visit to the site on 25.05.2020 found that Tower No.5, in which the allotted flat is there, is incomplete. There is no electric / water connection issued by the competent authority in favour of the opposite parties qua Tower No.5 where the complainant has been allotted flat. Also, the opposite parties have not obtained the Completion / Occupation Certificate by the competent authorities with regard to the tower, in question. The opposite parties have also violated the terms and conditions of Punjab Apartments and Properties Regulation Act, 1995 (in short PAPRA). This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, through this complaint, the complainant is seeking all the reliefs as prayed above. Defence of the Opposite Parties
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written statements separately. Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020
4. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is pre-mature as in view of Clause 33 of the agreement to sell, all or any disputes arising out or touching upon or in relation to the terms and conditions of the agreement, including interpretation and validity of terms thereof, shall be settled by mutual discussion. The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of clause 33 of the agreement to sell and only the Adjudicating Officer of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short RERA) can hear and resolve the dispute, if the mutual discussions fail. The present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as not filed in the proper Forum and the RERA being a special statute took precedence over the Consumer Protection Act. There is sufficient safeguard provided under the provisions of RERA and if the complainant is feeling aggrieved by any action, on the part of the opposite party, he may approach the RERA. The complainant indulged in Supresso Veri and Sugestio Falsi and has not approached this Commission with clean hands. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission and contents contain in the body of the complaint are amount to falsification. The complaint has been filed with malafide intention and bad motive just to get the undue advantage against the opposite parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is an investor and invested his amount to get the better returns. It is further admitted that the opposite parties are constructing the housing project and flat, in question, as per specific settled norms. Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 The opposite parties are developing the project as per approved layout plan. The construction of tower is in progress and it cannot be said that there is no chance of delivery of the possession. The opposite parties have already handed over the possession of 348 flats as situated in Tower A, B, C, F G & H to their respective allottes after obtaining the proper valid partial Completion Certificate. It is submitted that the cost of the flat was fixed as 62,32,700/- however, it is incorrect that it is including power back up, club charges and IFMS. The process of construction may be slow down due to shortage of labour and raw material due to COVID-19 but it has not been stopped at all. The opposite parties have not violated any provisions of PAPRA. The opposite parties develop the housing project after obtaining the required permission from the concern department. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Opposite party No.4 filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The dispute is between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 to 3 and opposite party No.4 has been unnecessarily impleaded as the party to the case. On merits, it is submitted that the present outstanding amount in the loan account bearing No.37443694365 is Rs.45,87,568/- as on 16.09.2020. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the answering opposite party. Evidence of the Parties
6. To prove his claim, the complainant has filed his self attested affidavit dated 02.06.2020 along with photo copies of documents i.e. receipt date 12.01.2017 as Ex.C-1, Receipt dated 20.03.2017 as Ex.C-2, Allotment Letter dated 22.03.2017 as Ex.C-3, Letter dated 23.12.2017 as Ex.C-4, Letter dated NIL as Ex.C-5, Receipt dated 13.04.2017 as Ex.C-6, Agreement for Sale dated 13.11.2017 as Ex.C-7, Letter dated 30.09.2019 as Ex.C-8, Photographs as Ex.C-9.
7. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed the affidavit of Saurabh Aggrwal, partner cum-authorized signatory dated 10.07.2020 along with photocopies of documents i.e. Partial Completion Certificate dated 19.02.2018 as Ex.OP-1, License to Develop colony dated 22.12.2016 as Ex.OP-2, NOC for withdrawal of ground water dated 18.10.2019 as Ex.OP-3, Fire NOC dated 25.03.2019 as Ex.OP-4, Pollution NOC for CTE dated 26.10.2015 as Ex.OP-5, Environment Clearance Letter dated 28.05.2015 as Ex.OP-6, Electricity NOC dated 26.04.2017 as Ex.OP-6A, Bank Account Detail dated NIL as Ex.OP-7.
8. Whereas opposite party No.4 filed the self attested affidavit of Sh.Satwant Singh, Acting Branch Manager along with photocopies of documents as Statement of Account as Ex.OP-4/1.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No.1 to 3 as none has appeared on behalf of Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 opposite party No.4. We have also carefully gone through pleadings, evidence as well as written arguments filed by the parties. Contentions of the Parties
10. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant purchased the flat, in question, for his personal use and necessity after raising the home loan from opposite party No.4. The complainant has already paid 72% of the total sale consideration to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties have failed to deliver the possession of the flat as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers Agreement. As per Clause 7 of the Flat Buyers Agreement dated 13.11.2017, opposite parties were required to deliver the possession of the flat complete in all respects after obtaining completion / occupation certificate from the competent authority by September, 2019. As per the photographs placed in evidence, the flats are not in habitable condition. The complainant chose Construction Linked Payment Plan and as per the plan whenever the demand was raised by the opposite parties, the complainant paid the amount, which the opposite parties utilized. The complainant is regularly paying the interest to the Bank on the loan amount. The opposite parties are not having any requisite permissions to complete the construction. The possession of the flat, in question, was to be delivered by the opposite parties by September, 2019 but till date the opposite parties have not completed the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant. Moreover the Certificate produced by the opposite Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 parties is a Partial Completion Certificate which relates to Tower No.1 to 3, whereas the complainant has been allotted the flat in Tower -5. The other NOCs and Certificates are related to other towers and not for Tower-5. Finally, it is prayed to allow the complaint and grant all the reliefs as prayed above.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature in view of Clause 33 of the agreement to sell. The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as only the Adjudicating Officer of the RERA is empowered to hear and resolve the dispute. The complainant is an investor not a consumer as the complainant himself states that he was in dire need of residential house for his personal use and if it is so, then why the complainant opt the under construction property and why not choose ready to move house. Moreover, the facts presented by the complainant are false and frivolous. The opposite parties are developing the project as per the approved layout plan. The tower in which the flat, in question, is situated will be completed very soon. The photographs produced by the complainant in the complaint are false and fabricated. The opposite parties have not violated any provisions of PAPRA and are developing the project after obtaining the required permissions from the concerned department. It is argued that the opposite parties are not indulged in any kind of unfair trade practice and not cheated to anybody. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020
12. Whereas as per the written arguments filed by opposite party No.4 it is contended that dispute is between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 to 3. The opposite party No.4 has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party to the present case. It is contended that the complainant availed the loan facility from the opposite party No.4 and the outstanding amount in the loan account bearing No.37443694365 is Rs.45,87,568/- as on 16.09.2020. It is further contended that in case the Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount, the same may be first appropriated towards the loan account of the complainant. Consideration of the Contentions
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. Initially, the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that the complainant is an investor and he invested his amount to get better returns. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that there is no evidence from the side of opposite parties No.1 to 3 to prove that the complainant is indulging in sale/purchase of property or for getting better returns and simple assertion in this regard in the reply of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is not sufficient to prove this fact. Honble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA STATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale-purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. In the instant case also, as already discussed above, there is no evidence led by opposite parties No.1 to 3 to prove that the complainant indulged in sale/purchase of properties or that he purchased the unit, in question, for further sale or for earning profits. Accordingly, the above said objection/ contention of opposite parties No.1 to 3 is rejected and the complainant is held to be consumer, under the Act.
15. Another objection raised by opposite parties No.1 to 3 are that in view of Clause 33 of the Agreement to Sell, the Adjudicating Officer of the RERA can hear and resolve the dispute. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that as per Section 3, the provisions of the C.P. Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Similarly Section 71 of the RERA has specifically mentioned about the applicability of the provisions, which falls under Section 12, 14, 18 and Section 19 of the C.P. Act and the first proviso to Section 3 of the RERA provides that the projects, which are ongoing on the date Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 of commencement of the RERA and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three months from the date of commencement of RERA. Section 88 of RERA says that application of other laws is not barred. The provisions of RERA shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of Section 88 of the RERA and the provisions of Section 3 of the C.P. Act are almost identical, which means both the Fora have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter, whichever come in their respective jurisdiction. Section 89 of the RERA provides that the provisions of RERA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. However, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the two Central Acts. The C.P. Act is applicable where there is deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice, whereas the provisions of RERA have own field i.e. Section 12, 14, 18 and 19 of RERA. This makes it very much clear that there is no inconsistency in the provisions of both the Acts. Section 88 of RERA has clarified that application of other laws is not barred. The remedies are additional remedies under the RERA as well.
16. Moreover, by introduction of RERA, the jurisdiction of the C.P. Act is not specifically ousted. The scope and reach of the C.P. Act of 1986 has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, some of the important ones are: Lucknow Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. . (2000) 5 SCC 294, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (2003) 2 SCC 412, CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2003) 7 SCC 233, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305, H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230.
17. In view of law laid down in the above noted authorities, it is held that this Commission is competent to entertain and decide the present complaint and the provisions of RERA do not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. Accordingly, the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed.
18. Now on merits, initially the complainant purchased one 3 BHK flat from the opposite parties in the month of January, 2017. Thereafter, the complainant swap the flat from 3 BHK to 4 BHK and accordingly, vide Allotment Letter, Ex.C-3, the complainant was allotted a Flat bearing No.402, 4th Floor, Tower T05, admeasuring 1945 Sq.ft. The Hermitage Park, Zirakpur. An Agreement for sale, dated 13.11.2017, Ex.C-7 was executed between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 to 3. As per Agreement to Sell, the Total Price of the apartment based on the carpet area is fixed as Rs.60,49,350/-. A Letter dated 23.12.2017, Ex.C-4, was issued by opposite parties permitting the complainant to mortgage Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 the same for availing home loan. Against the sale price of the flat, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.44,95,489/- vide Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-6 which has been confirmed in the agreement Clause 1.12 that the allottee has paid Rs.43,18,913/- as BSP and Taxes of Rs.1,76,576/-. Apart from the sale consideration, some additional charges are required to be paid like power back, IFMS and Club Membership Registration Charges. Further as per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement the possession was to be delivered by September, 2019. The clause 7.1 of the agreement is reproduced as under:- 7.1 Schedule for possession of the said Apartment: The promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the Apartment is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter, based on the approved plans and specifications, assures to hand over possession of the Apartment on September-2019 unless there is delay or failure due to ward, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project (Force Majeure). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the Apartment, provided that such Force Majeure conditions are not of a nature which make it impossible for the contract to be implemented. The Allottee agrees and confirms that, in the event it becomes impossible for the Promoter to implement the project due to Force Majeure conditions, then this allotment shall stand terminated and the Promoter shall refund to the Allottee the entire amount received by the Promoter from the allotment within ninety days from the date of termination of allotment. Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 After refund of the money paid by the Allottee, the Allottee agrees that he/she shall not have any rights, claims etc. against the Promoter and that the Promoter shall be released and discharged from all its obligations and liabilities under this Agreement.
19. In view of the above clause, it is evident that the possession was to be delivered to the complainant by September, 2019 which is still not delivered. It is also pertinent to mention here that no further demand was raised by the opposite parties after receipt of Rs.44,95,489/-. As the payment plan was Construction Linked, therefore, the opposite parties were required to send the demand notice as per construction stages. However, no such evidence has been produced by the opposite parties.
20. The complainant also placed on record some photographs with regard to incompletion of the project. On the other side, the opposite parties have not placed any document in rebuttal to their averments to show that the project is complete and is ready for possession or the construction of the project is in full swing. Mere assertion without producing any document in their evidence clearly indicates that the opposite parties have nothing to prove this fact. No offer of possession was given to the complainant whereas the possession was to be delivered on September -2019. Moreover, the Partial Completion Certificate (Ex.OP-1) placed on record by the opposite parties was issued only for the Tower 1, 2 and 3. No Completion Certificate has been placed on record with regard to Tower No.5 wherein the allotted flat is situated. Further, the opposite parties have also failed to give any cogent and convincing Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 reasons for non-development of the project and non-delivery of possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, nor proved any such evidence on record from which it can be inferred that any force majeure circumstances prevented them from developing the project within the stipulated period. It was also the duty of the opposite parties to comply with all the formalities of the Government, before launching the project itself. It was the bounden duty/responsibility of the opposite parties themselves to complete the construction/development of the project, in question, within the stipulated time frame and they cannot term their own inaction, as force majeure circumstances. Due to non-delivery of possession of the flat, in question, during all these years, the complainant has been suffering mental agony, harassment and financial loss continuously. Since the very purpose of purchasing the flats, in question, has been defeated, therefore, the complainant is well within his right to claim refund of the amount deposited by him. However, the opposite parties neither delivered the possession of the flat, complete in all respects to the complainant nor refunded the amount deposited by him, which caused harassment and mental tension to the complainant. This act and conduct of the opposite parties certainly amount to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part.
21. During arguments, counsel for the opposite parties failed to give any positive date/time, as to when, construction, will be completed and possession of the constructed unit will be given. In Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 the written statement also, no commitment was made, as to by which time and date, possession of the unit will be delivered, after construction. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite party. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014.
22. The opposite parties have also violated the terms and conditions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) as they have failed to handover the possession to the complainant within the stipulated period.
23. The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the unit in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of unit and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with opposite parties, he would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and Rules and would not be able to complete the unit and to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainant to book the unit, 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 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.
24. Further, it has been held above that the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date despite receiving the substantial amount. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the unit purchased by him. Furthermore, non-delivery of possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date, is a material violation on the part of the opposite parties and amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession of unit/plot by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the Honble National Commission, in case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14.09.2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:- "I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest."
25. 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 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.
26. So far as the opposite party No.4 is concerned, the complainant has not sought any relief against opposite party No.4. The opposite party No.4 has provided the loan facility to the complainant only to purchase the residential house, in question. Consumer Complaint No.138 of 2020 Accordingly, we are of the view that the complaint filed against opposite party No.4 deserves to be dismissed.
27. Sequel to the above discussions, the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.4. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed as under:-
i) to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.44,95,489/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. It is made clear that, first of all opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay the outstanding amount to opposite party No.4-SBI towards the loan advanced by it to the complainant and, thereafter, the remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to the complainant; ii) to pay Rs.51,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
28. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 12.01.2021 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the orders be communicated to the parties, as per rules.
29. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases. (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 03,2021 parmod