SHALIMAR CITY SAMAJIK KALYAN SAMITI v. M/S. M.R. PROVIEW REAL TECH PVT. LTD.

as "UP Apartment Act"). As per the provisions contained in the U.P. Apartment Act, on formation of the Association of the Apartment Owners, the management of the apartments regarding their common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be transferred from the Opposite Party Developer to the Association and in turn they have to maintain the same. The Developer is also not entitled to demand the Electricity Installation Charges as the same are part and parcel of the total Sale Consideration. It is alleged that the Allottees have been threatened for cancellation of the booking in case of non-payment of the demands.

4. Upon receiving the Pre-Possession-cum-Demand Letters, the Allottes visited the Construction Site and came to know that the Project was far from completion and it was not in habitable condition at all and Developer also refused to show them the Completion Certificate as well as the NOC received from the Competent Authorities. According to the Complainant Society, the Developer has constructed 11 stories as against the sanctioned ground plus 9 Stories and sold the apartments constructed in illegal Floors. It is also averred that the Developer has converted the public parks and other public utilities into saleable areas. The Complainant Society even made representation before the Ghaziabad Development Authority highlighting the illegal and unauthorised construction in the Project in violation of the Sanctioned Plan. However, neither any reply nor any action had been taken by Ghaziabad Development Authority. The Opposite Party Developer has also not constructed the Club and parking spaces for which the amount had already been charged.

5. The Complainant Society vide RTI reply, came to know that the total land of Housing Complex is much less than 71,180 Sq. Mtrs. The Developer has excluded certain portions of the land from the Project Complex by raising boundary walls to be used for their own benefit. That the Opposite Party Developer had even reduced area of Apartments without obtaining consent from the concerned allottees. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party Developer does not have the requisite NOCs/approvals for Water Supply, Rain Water Harvesting, Earthquake Resistance, Wastage disposals, etc.

6. As stated in the Complaint, the Opposite Party Developer had sold certain Apartments under "No EMI Till Possession Scheme" at an exorbitant price and had agreed to pay the interest of EMIs to the Bank till actual physical possession is handed over, however, the Opposite Party has stopped paying the interest to the Bank, after which the Allottees are being pressurized by the Bank to pay the interest amount.

7. Aggrieved by deficient service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant Society issued legal notice on 16.07.2015 to them seeking possession along with compensation @18% p.a., however, the Developer did not respond to the same.

8. Complainant Society had earlier filed Consumer Complaint No. 717 of 2015 against the Opposite Party Developer, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 11.01.2018 with liberty to file a fresh Complaint with amended aims and objectives of the Complainant Society.

9. Therefore, the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant Society with the following prayers:-

i. Direction to the Respondent to handover possession of Apartments, to respective consumers, complete in all respects and in conformity with the Allotment letter and for the consideration mentioned therein (in case area of the apartment has been reduced, after reducing the consideration of the respective apartment accordingly), with all promised facilities and amenities (including parking space) and as per quality standards promised, and execute all the necessary and required documents (post receipt of appropriate completion certificate and other permissions/approvals from relevant authorities) in respect of the apartment in favour of the respective consumers within such timeline as fixed by this Hon'ble Commission;

ii. Direction to the Respondent to pay interest @12% per annum on the amount deposited by the concerned consumers with the Respondent, with effect from the respective date of possession, till the date actual physical possession as per clause (i) above is handed over by the Respondent.

iii. Direction to the Respondent Company to withdraw the demand for advance maintenance charges and collect maintenance on monthly basis until the formation of the association of apartment owners;

iv. Direction to the Respondent to bear the increase in service tax increased from 1st June, 2015;

v. Direction to the Respondent to pay the interest portion of the Bank EMI to the allottees who purchased the flat under "NO EMI till Possession Scheme";

2

vi. Direction to the Respondent to withdraw the demand for Electricity meter.

vii. Direction to the Respondent Company to pay ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) each, as compensation for disruption to living arrangements, mental torture, agony and harassment caused to the concerned consumer on account of the deficient and unfair practices of the Respondent;

viii. Direct the Respondent to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to each concerned consumer represented herein, towards litigation costs.

ix. Pass any other and further relief which the Hon'ble Commission thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Complaint and against the Respondent."

10. Upon notice, the Complaint has been resisted by the Opposite Party Developer by filing its Written Version. It is contended, inter-alia, that; Members of the Complainant Society had purchased the Units for commercial purposes; the Complainant Society is not the recognised association, the Opposite Party Developer is absolute owner of a piece of land admeasuring 71,180 Sq. Mtrs. and has the requisite sanctioned plans for basement plus ground plus 11(eleven) floors; the Members of the Complainant Society has signed the Allotment Letters with their own wish and whim; since the Allottees defaulted in timely making payment of the instalments, the offer of possession was not made despite the fact that the Completion Certificate was expected to be obtained by May, 2018 in respect of certain Towers; Service Tax has to be charged with each instalment as per prevalent rate fixed by the Government; the Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) is included in the total Sale Consideration but it is considered to be paid only when the total Sales Consideration is paid by the Allottees; the question of free maintenance for two years does not arise since Maintenance Charges are payable as per the terms of the Allotment Letter and in fact a separate Maintenance Agreement has been executed between the Allottees and the Maintenance Agency; dual electricity meters have been provided and the electrification till the point of extraction is also done free of costs, however, charges as per independent contract of the consumers with the Electricity Authorities, would be paid by them; the Completion Certificate has been applied and the delay is due to bureaucratic reasons; that the entire Layout Plan as approved by Ghaziabad Development Authority has not been disturbed; there is no provision for providing service lift for carrying goods ups and down; the temporary wall was constructed for the safety and security of the residents of Phase I as the development work was continuing in the vast Project and the same would be dismantled on completion of the Project; the Allottees have been provided with Super Area more than as promised and a Local Commissioner can be appointed to ascertain such details; that there has been no change in the area of the Apartments as alleged; the Opposite Party Developer has in possession the requisite Certificates for Rain Water Harvesting, Wasting Disposal, etc.; the requisite EMIs were paid by the Opposite Party till the offer of possession; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Developer and as such the Complaint deserves to be dismissed.

11. It is imperative to mention here that Vide Order, dated 23.07.2018 passed by this Commission, reserving the right of the respective contentions of the parties, the Opposite Party Developer was directed to deliver the possession of Apartments to the Allottees in respect of which Completion Certificate had been obtained by them subject to depositing the disputed amount by the Allottees with this Commission and paying the admitted amount to the Developer. In terms of the said direction, the possession was taken by some of the Allottees after payment of admitted balance amount, however, it was submitted that the Apartments suffer from certain defects.

12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and also gone through the material available on record.

13. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Developer that the Members of the Complainant Society are not the 'Consumers' and that they had booked the flats/apartments for commercial purpose and earning profits, is completely unsustainable in the light of the judgement of this Commission in Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31, in which the principle laid down is that the onus of establishing that the Allottee was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Party, which in the instant case they had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish their case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Allottees are the "Consumers" as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act.

3

14. So far as, the plea that since the Allottees had defaulted in making timely payment as per Payment Plan, the offer of possession was not made to them despite the fact that the Completion Certificate was expected to be obtained very soon, is concerned, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party Developer was entitled either to cancel the Agreement or charge delay interest in case of default in payment, as per terms and conditions of the Agreement while offering the possession and demanding the final payment. The Opposite Party Developer cannot take shelter under this lame excuse for the delay in completing the Project and offering the possession to the Allottees. Accordingly, the said plea is rejected.

15. Vide Order, dated 27.01.2022, the Commission has directed the parties to furnish the following details for the proper appreciation of the evidence and to arrive at a reasonable and just conclusion:-

(i) Proposed date of delivery of the possession of the booked Apartment;

(ii) Admitted amount, if any, payable by the Complainant to the Opposite Party Developer;

(iii) Date on which Completion Certificate has been obtained;

(iv) Actual date on which possession has been taken;

(v) Disputed amount and its details;

(vi) As to whether the disputed amount has been deposited with this Commission or not in terms of the Orders dated 23.07.2018 and

01.11.2019.

16. In compliance of the said Order, the Complainant Society has furnished the necessary details in a tabulated form which is reproduced as under:-

Balance

Amount

Amount Balance

disputed in Date on

payable to Amount demanded

Total respect of which Actual

the paid to the by the

amount maintenance possession Date on Date on

S. Builder respondent Respondent Name of the Applicant Date of payable charges was which which

(Inc. ser. builder Builder as

No. Member Agreement as per submitted promised CC was possession Tax) At before per final

agreement before the as per obtained was

the time possession demand

(In INR) Hon'ble allotment granted

of in (INR) letter (in

NCDRC (in letter

possession INR)

INR)

(in INR)

1 Amit Jain 22.05.20113.441.079 200,344 3,328,576 601,149 400,805 22.05.2013 08.02.201625.02.2020

4 Jay Shankar Roy 14.09.20122,420,800 141,829 2,349,512 265,930 124,101 31.12.2013 14.06.201630.12.2019

4

Manoj Chauhan)

Nand Kumar Singhal

6 28.07.20123,486,876 215,304 3,371,226 538,055 322,751 28.09.2013 08.02.201624.09.2018

(CO.APP.SachinSinghal)

7 Nitesh Kumar 22.06.20113,780,504 220,151 3,660,717 675,899 455,748 22.06.2013 08.02.201609.02.2019

8 Santosh Kumar 28.11.20124,785,646 281,023 4,644,071 490,006 208,983 31.12.2013 14.06.201928.01.2020 Anurag Chandra

9 30.04.20122,578,420 Nil 2,787,487 Nil 10,503 30.10.2013 08.02.201623.10.2016 Srivastava

10 Rojer John 16.06.20124,426,797 NIL 4,589,596 NIL Nil 31.12.2013 14.06.201920.11.2019 Usha Devi (Co-APP.

11 13.05.20113,240,064 190,299 3,135,737 548,738 351,002 13.05.2013 08.02.201603.02.2019

Rameshwar Dass Khoba)

Mohd Rizwan (Co-APP.

12 09.04.20122,909,088 71,227 2,816,996 432,301 361,074 09.10.2013 08.02.201621.10.2018

Mohd.Razaullah)

Sachin Singhal (Co-

13 19.06.20113,345,000 166,143 3,269,139 795,332 629,189 31.12.2013 08.02.201624.09.2018

APP. Krishan Singhal)

Anjiv Kumar (CO-APP-

14 03.11.20123,702,174 221,132 3,588,513 548,738 327,606 31.12.2013 08.02.201629.10.2018

Garima)

15 Ms Urmila Sinha 25.06.20113,233,384 185,743 5,142,472 339,696 153,953 25.06.2013 14.06.201912.11.2019

16 Mr.Sudhir Kumar 25.06.20113,233,384 189,133 3,134,211 319,477 130,344 25.06.2013 14.06.201924.09.2020

17 Vinod Kapoor 22.02.20135,284,135 304,705 5,133,295 703,733 398,983 31.12.2013 08.02.201624.09.2018 Jagat Singh (Co-APP.

18 08.08.20112,611,200 149,291 2,537,981 370,117 220,826 31.12.2013 14.06.201905.04.2021

Kalpana Chaudhary)

5

Vijayta Rana)

20 Dr.Ajai Kumar Gupta 27.07.20123,833,942 185,940 3,178,342 413,747 227,807 31.12.2013 14.06.201911.12.2019

Mr.BaljitWalia entered into a settlement with the Respondent builder. Possession was granted to him on

24

09.02.2019. Disputed amount of INR 7,65,220/- deposited to NCDRC on 24.08.2018. Mr.PradeepChoudhary entered into settlement with the builder and possession was granted to him on

25

03.01.2020. Disputed amount of INR 2,22,123/- deposited to NCDRC on 27.11.2019. Mr. N.C. Birla entered into settlement with the Respondent Builder and possession to him on 05.10.2016.

26

No disputed amount submitted to NCDRC Mr.Raghuvinder Singh Khushwah has withdrawn his name from the Complainant Society. He got the

27

possession of his respective unit in March, 2019. No disputed amount submitted to NCDRC.

: Please note that certain facilities which were promised at the time of entering into Builder -Buyer Agreement such as parking, club house, and Swimming Pool, are not

delivered to the resident till date.

: The Occupancy Certificate has not been obtained by the Builder till date.

•

: Mr.Vinod Kumar had opted for" No cost - EMI till possession scheme however, the Builder defaulted in making EMI payments from March, 2015 until the date of actual

possession of the respective unit, i.e. 24.09.2018.

: Mr.Vipin Kumar had opted for "No cost - EMI till possession scheme however, the Builder defaulted in making EMI payments from March, 2015 until the date of actual

6

possession of the respective unit, i.e. 20.10.2018.

: Mr.Santosh Kumar had opted for" No cost - EMI till possession scheme however, the Builder defaulted in making EMI payments from March, 2015 until the date of actual

possession of the respective unit, i.e. 28.01.2020.

17. However, for the reasons best known to them, the Opposite Party Developer has not furnished the aforesaid information till today despite a specific direction in this regard.

18. A bare perusal of the afore-extracted Table would reveal that the Members of the Complainant Society had booked respective flats/Apartments in the Project of the Opposite Party Developer during the period from 09.04.2011 to 22.02.2013. All the Members of the Complainant Society had paid substantial amount, i.e almost 90% to 95% of the total Sale Consideration to the Opposite Party Developer. The committed date of delivery of the possession of the booked Flats/Apartments, complete in all respect along with amenities, in terms of the Allotment Letters issued to the Members of the Complainant Society, was latest by December, 2013 except in the case of the Allottee at Sl. Nos. 5 and 18 whereby the possession was to be delivered latest by December, 2014. According to the aforesaid Table, the Completion Certificate and that too partial only, has been obtained on 08.02.2016 in respect of 15 Members out of aforesaid 23 Members of the Complainant Society and the partial Completion Certificate in respect to the remaining Members of the Complainant Society has been obtained on 14.06.2019 only. Mr. Raghuvinder Singh Khushwaha has withdrawn his name from the Complainant Society and settled the matter with the Opposite Party Developer. Undoubtedly, all the Members of the Complainant Society had taken possession of the allotted Flats during the period from 10.09.2018 to 05.04.2021. Hence, there is delay of about 4 to 5 years in handing over the possession by the Opposite Party Developer to the Members of the Complainant Society from the promised date of delivery of possession as mentioned in the Allotment Letters for which they are certainly entitled for compensation. In this regard, attention is drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. - (2020) 16 SCC 512 decided on 24.08.2020 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

" A failure of the Developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression service " in Section 2 (1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation.

For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the complaint by the NCDRC was erroneous.

7

The flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil the representations made to flat buyers in regard to the provision of amenities........"

19. Now, the next question which arises for our consideration is the rate of interest to be awarded to the Members of the Complainant Society for the delayed possession. It is the Complainant's case that if the Opposite Party Developer is charging interest from the Flat Purchasers @ 18% p.a. (as per Clause A.1 of the Allotment Letter) for the delay in making payment of the instalments, the Complainants ought to be awarded the same interest for delayed possession. However, we are of the considered view that having regard to the fact that Banks have lowered the interest rate on the FDRs and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been awarding interest keeping in view the current market situation especially after Covid pandemic and further considering the recent decline in real estate business, the interest @ 9% p.a. would meet the ends of justice, together with costs of ₹50,000/-.

20. A further perusal of the afore-extracted Table would show that the only dispute between the parties regarding payment is about demand of Maintenance Charges by the Opposite Party and in terms of the Orders dated 23.07.2018 and 01.11.2019 passed by this Commission, the disputed amount towards Maintenance Charges had already been deposited with this Commission except in the case of Allottees at Sl. Nos. 9 and 10 (Anurag Chandra Srivastava and Rojer John). The said Members of the Complainant Society had already paid the amounts of ₹2,18,086/- and ₹1,90,533/- respectively towards Maintenance Charges to the Opposite Party Developer. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant Society, the demand of Maintenance Charges for two years in advance by the Opposite Party Developer is wholly illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as in terms of Section 14 of the UP Apartment Act, on formation of Association of Apartment Owners, the management of Apartments regarding their common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be transferred from the Promoter, i.e., the Opposite Party Developer to the Association, which shall thereupon maintain the same. As against this, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Developer submitted that since the Project has been completed and the Occupancy Certificate has been obtained, the Allottees are bound to pay the Maintenance Charges in terms of Clause C of the Allotment Letter. Besides, separate Maintenance Agreements have also been executed by the Flat Owners for payment of Maintenance Charges.

21. The question with regard to payment of Maintenance Charges by the Allottees to the Developer has already been discussed in detail by this Commission in the case of in Kamal Kishore & Anr. Versus M/s. Supertech Limited, - II (2017) CPJ 483 (NC) decided on 14.03.2017, wherein it was inter-alia, held as under:-

" The next demand raised by the Opposite Party towards maintenance charges. Clause 10 of the allotment letter which refers to the maintenance expenses, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

" THAT an Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) towards the maintenance and upkeep of the complex shall be payable by the Allottee/s to the Company as mentioned in the payment plan on page No. 2/3. The date of commencement of maintenance and upkeep of the complex for which monthly maintenance charges to be paid by the allottee based on super area of the unit, shall be reckoned from the date of issue of "Letter of Offer of Possession."

It would thus be seen that maintenance charges are required to be paid by the allottee from the date of issue of letter of offer of possession. As stated earlier, the possession in my view could not have been offered to the allottee without completing the construction of the villa in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate. Offering possession without obtaining the occupancy certificate is meaningless since the allottee is not permitted in law to occupy the house which does not have the requisite occupancy certificate. Therefore, the maintenance charges, in my opinion, would be payable only from the date on which the possession is offered to the complainants, after obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate and provided the construction of the villa complete in all respects at that time."

22. Recently, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the case of Madhusudhan Reddy R. And Ors. Vs. VDB Whitefield Development Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Consumer Complaint No. 763 OF 2020 - decided on 25.01.2022, has taken the similar view placing reliance upon the decision in Kamal Kishore's case (supra). While dealing with the justification of the demand on account of Maintenance Charges by the

8

Developer, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Commission observed as under:-

" Regarding the issue of maintenance charges, it is fact that, the Complainants have taken physical possession of their respective units. It would be logical that, there would be expense on the maintenance of certain common services. It is also a fact that, the Occupancy Certificate has not been obtained yet. It means that the project is not yet fully complete and that not all services promised are being provided. As per the Order of this Commission in Kamal Kishore & Anr. Versus M/s. Supertech Limited (Supra), No maintenance charge should be levied before obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. In this case, even of some of the allottees including the Complainants, have taken possession of their respective Units, it would be considered as paper possession only. So, the question of charging maintenance charge is in our considered view not proper and therefore should not have been collected and should not be collected till receipt of the Occupancy Certificate. The Complainants will be liable to pay maintenance charge only after the Occupancy Certificate is received."

22. In the present Complaint, it is the case of the Complainant Society that only the partial Occupancy Certificate has been obtained by the Opposite Party Developer as the Project is still not complete even after a lapse of period of 5 to 6 years from the promised date of delivery as mentioned in the Allotment Letters. The Opposite Party Developer has also failed to provide certain amenities as promised. However, on the contrary, the defence of the Opposite Party Developer is that the Occupancy Certificate has been obtained in respect of Project and the possession of the allotted Flats/Apartments have been taken by the Members of the Complainant Society only after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate by the Developer in respect of their respective Flat/Apartment.

23. On scrutiny of the record, it is found that the Occupancy Certificate dated 14.06.2019 filed by the Opposite Party Developer on 07.08.2019 is only a partial Occupancy Certificate. Moreover, despite the opportunity having been granted, vide Order dated 27.01.2022, the Opposite Party Developer did not opt to furnish the information pertaining to date on which Completion Certificate obtained by it in respect of the Members of the Complainant Society and the disputed amount between the parties. Therefore, in the light of the decisions of this Commission in the cases of Kamal Kapoor (Supra) and Madhusudhan Reddy R (Supra), we are of the considered view that the Developer is not entitled to charge any amount on account of Maintenance Charges from the Allottees till the Occupancy Certificate is issued to them with respect of the Project by the Competent Authorities.

24. With regard to the defects in the allotted Flats/Apartments pointed out by the Members of the Complainant Society at the time of taking the possession, we direct the Opposite Party Developer to cure the same, if already not done, within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order failing which the Complainant Society shall get repaired the defects in the Flats/Apartments at the costs of the Developer.

25. It has been submitted on behalf of the Complainant Society that its Members placed at Sl. Nos. 8, 17 and 19 in the afore-extracted Chart (Santosh Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Vipin Kumar) has opted for "No Cost-EMI-Till Possession" Payment Scheme. The said Members of the Complainant Society had taken the actual possession of the allotted Apartments on 28.01.2020, 24.09.2018 and 20.10.2018, however, the Developer had defaulted in making the EMI Payment to the Bank/Financial Institutions from July 2015 in the case of Santoh Kumar and from March 2015 in respect of the other two Members. We are of the view that since the Developer has failed to establish by adducing any documentary evidence that the delay in completion of the Project is due to any force-majeure reasons or the reasons beyond their control, they are liable to pay the EMI payments till handing over the actual possession of the Apartment.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, the Complaint is partly allowed with the following directions to the Opposite Party Developer to:-

(i) Remove the defects in the Apartments pointed out by the Members of the Complainant Association at the time of taking the possession, within a period of six months from today failing which the same shall be get cured by the Society at their costs;

(ii) Duly obtain the requisite Occupancy Certificate at its own cost if not already obtained and to execute the required legal documents.

(iii) Pay delay Compensation to the Members of the Society @ 9 % per annum from proposed date of possession, which would include grace period as per their respective Allotment Letters on the amount deposited, till handing over the actual

9

possession, within a period of six weeks from today failing which the delay compensation will be @ 12% per annum for the same period.

(iv) To collect the Maintenance Charges, if any payable by the Members of Society, from the date of receipt of Occupancy Certificate;

(v) If any amount is collected on account of Maintenance Charges from the Members of the Society before the receipt of Occupancy Certificate, the same shall be adjusted against the payable maintenance charge, if any or shall be refunded with interest @9% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till the receipt of Occupancy Certificate;

(vi) To calculate the amount of EMI payment payable under the Subvention Payment Scheme by the Developer till the date of actual possession and adjust the same against any amount payable by the Members of the Society or to refund the same with interest @9% p.a. from the due date till actual payment.

27. We further direct the Registry to release the disputed amount deposited by the Members of the Complainant Society in terms of the orders dated 23.07.2018 and 01.11.2019 to them along with interest accrued, if any.

28. The Consumer Complaint is disposed of in above terms. The application, if any pending, shall also stands disposed of.

......................J

R.K. AGRAWAL

PRESIDENT

......................

DR. S.M. KANTIKAR

MEMBER

10