Full Judgment
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. The facts, in brief, are that allured by the assurances of the representative of the Opposite Party, with regard to the salient features, like 100 ft wide road connected with Chandigarh, high security, black-topped wide internal roads, drainage, sewerage, 24 hours water and electricity supply, street lighting, green belts, shopping complex etc. etc., in its (Opposite Party), project, under the name and style of œMohali Plots at Mohali Hills?, Sector 104, Mohali, Punjab, the complainants decided to purchase a plot therein (project of the Opposite Party). It was stated that the representative of the Opposite Party, also assured the complainants that the development activity, at the site was in full swing, and if they booked the plot, the possession thereof, complete in all respects, would be handed over to them, within a period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement. It was further stated that it was also assured by the representative of the Opposite Party, that the Plot Buyer`s Agreement would be executed between the parties, within a few days, whereafter, the complainants, would be able to raise housing loan, from any Bank, to make payment towards the cost of the said plot. On such assurances, the complainants applied to the Opposite Party, for the allotment of a residential plot, and paid a sum of Rs.5 lacs, as booking amount, vide cheque No.893241 dated 12.02.2011. Receipt dated 16.02.2011 Annexure C-1, in this regard was issued by the Opposite Party. The complainants were allotted plot no.104-EP-94-250, measuring 250 square yards, in œMohali Plots at Mohali Hills, Mohali?, @Rs.22,000/- per square yard. The basic price of the said plot was to the tune of Rs.53,90,000/-. Apart from this amount, the complainants were also required to pay a sum of Rs.6,87,500/-, towards Single Preferential Location Charges (PLC) plus (+) Additional charges. Thus, after discount of Rs.1,10,000/-, the total sale consideration, in the sum of Rs.65,30,250/-, was required to be paid by the complainants, towards the said plot.
2. Provisional Allotment letter dated 25.02.2011 Annexure C-2, in respect of plot no.104-EP-94-250, in œMohali Plots at Mohali Hills, Mohali?, was issued, in favour of complainant No.1. It was further stated that another amount of Rs.5,78,000/-, towards the part price of the said plot, was deposited by the complainants, with the Opposite Party, vide cheque No.354672 dated 15.04.2011. It was further stated that despite making part payment of Rs.10,78,000/-, to the Opposite Party, till the month of April, 2011, it failed to ensure the execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, in respect of the said plot, in the absence whereof, the Bank concerned refused to sanction the loan, which was required by them (complainants), to make payment of the remaining sale consideration. It was further stated that, on the other hand, the Opposite Party, started levying interest, on delayed payments. It was further stated that email dated 21.05.2011 Annexure C-4, was sent to the Opposite Party, with a request to ensure the execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, in respect of the plot, in question, as also to waive off the interest aforesaid. It was further stated that, in turn, the Opposite Party, sent an email dated 24.05.2011, wherein it was stated that the Plot Buyer`s Agreement shall be executed shortly, but, at the same time, the complainants were also asked to make payment of installments of price due, towards the said plot. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainants made a number of oral, as well as written requests, to the Opposite Party, to ensure the execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, but to no avail.
3. It was further stated that by June, 2011, the total amount of Rs.22,30,250/- had already been paid by the complainants, to the Opposite Party, towards the part price of the said plot, but the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, in respect thereof was still not executed by them. Ultimately, the Opposite Party sent a copy of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, in respect of the said plot, with a direction to return the same, after signing it, within 30 days, from the date of receipt thereof. It was further stated that, on going through the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, the complainants were shocked to see that the same were favourable to the Opposite Party only, and their (complainants) rights had been totally ignored. It was further stated that the complainants had no option than to sign the said Plot Buyer`s Agreement, so as to avoid cancellation of the plot, and forfeiture of 15% of the total sale consideration thereof. Accordingly, on 22.11.2011, the complainants, signed the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, and sent the same to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that, in this manner, the Plot Buyer`s Agreement was executed between the parties.
4. It was further stated that due to the delay aforesaid, in execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, the complainants, could not avail the housing loan, in time, from the concerned Bank, as a result whereof, they could not pay the amount of 3rd, 4th and 5th installments, which were due to be paid by them, by August, 2011, November 2011 and February 2012, respectively. The complainants sent an email dated 20.12.2011 Annexure C-10, to the Opposite Party, explaining their inability to pay the aforesaid due installments, in time, and requested them, for extension of time, for the purpose, but they refused to do so, and, on the other hand, served cancellation notice dated 24.02.2012 Annexure C-11, in respect of the plot, in question. It was further stated that, in the month of March, 2012, the complainants succeeded in availing of loan, from the HDFC Bank, and, as such, by 20.08.2012, paid the part sale consideration of the said plot, to the tune of Rs.62,60,750/- i.e. about 95% of the same (sale consideration). The remaining 5% of the sale consideration was required to be paid at the time of delivery of physical possession of the plot, in question. Detailed statement of account dated 26.03.2013 Annexure C-12, in respect of the amount received by the Opposite Party, was issued by it.
5. It was further stated that, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, subject to force majeure conditions, and reasons beyond the control of the Company, physical possession of the fully developed residential plot, was to be handed over to the complainants, within a period of 12 (twelve months), but not later than 18 months, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement). It was further mentioned, in the said Agreement, that, in case of delay, in handing over possession of the fully developed plot, within 18 (eighteen) months, the Opposite Party was liable to pay compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per square yard, per month, for such period of delay, from the date of execution thereof.
6. When physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, was not delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date i.e. 21.05.2013, the complainants visited the site, and found that there was no development, in the area, in which the same (plot) was allotted. The complainants made a number of oral, as well as written requests, to the Opposite Party, to deliver legal physical possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, but it failed to do so, but, on the other hand, sent a vague letter dated 21.08.2013 Annexure C-15, stating therein that the compensation/penalty, would be adjusted against the remaining payment, to be paid by them, at the time of registration of the plot, in question, in their favour. It was further stated that the Opposite Party coined lame excuse of inclement weather for delay, in handing over physical possession of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants. It was further stated that, later on, the complainants also came to know that the Opposite Party had allotted at least 19 plots, adjoining their plot, in the same project, at lesser rate i.e. @Rs.20,000/- per square yard, whereas, on the other hand, two years earlier, at the same location, the plot was allotted to them @Rs.22,000/- per square yard.
7. It was further stated that the huge amount of Rs.62,60,750/-, deposited by the complainants, i.e. about 95% of the price of plot, in question, was utilized by the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, they (complainants) were caused financial loss. It was further stated that since the Opposite Party had not delivered the legal possession of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, they were not able to construct house thereon, and reside therein, as a result whereof, for the last three years, they had been staying in a rented accommodation, for which they paid monthly rent, to the tune of Rs.14,520/- per month, for the year 2012 and Rs.15,000/- per month, for the year 2013, as is evident from Rent Deeds Annexure C-17 (colly.), thereby causing unnecessary financial burden. It was further stated that besides that, the complainants underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of non-delivery of physical possession of the fully developed plot, to them, and also suffered further financial loss, on account of non-payment of compensation, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above, for the period of delay, or by not refunding the amount, deposited by them.
8. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.62,60,750/-, alongwith interest @24% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay/reimburse the amount of rent, paid by them, to the landlords @ Rs.14,520/- per month, for the year 2012 and @ Rs.15,000/- per month, for the year 2013 w.e.f. 25.08.2012 (infact 21.05.2013) (the stipulated date of possession), with future rent, alongwith interest @24% P.A.; pay penalty @ Rs.500/- [(infact @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only)] per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, in handing over possession of the fully developed plot, calculated @24% P.A.; compensation, in the sum of Rs.15 lacs, for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency, in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/-, alongwith interest @24% P.A.
9. The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that this Commission, has got no territorial and pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that the application for seeking permission, to file the instant Consumer Complaint jointly, was not filed by the complainants. The factum of provisional allotment of the plot, aforesaid, and the issuance of provisional allotment letter dated 25.02.2011 Annexure C-2, in favour of the complainants was admitted. It was also admitted that the complainants made payment of Rs.62,60,750/-, towards the part price of residential plot, in question. Execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, between the parties was also admitted. It was also admitted that there was some delay, on the part of the Opposite Party, in execution of the said Agreement. It was stated that, no doubt, as per the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, subject to force majeure conditions, and the reasons beyond the control of the Company, physical possession of the fully developed residential plot, was to be handed over to the complainants, within a period of 12 months, but not later than 18 months, from the date of execution thereof (Agreement), yet, at the same time, it was also mentioned therein, that, in case of delay, the Opposite Party, was liable to pay compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per square yard, per month, for such period of delay. It was further stated that since, the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, neither they could go beyond the same, nor any relief, contrary to the same (Agreement), could be granted to the complainants. It was further stated that the option to take the housing loan, from a Financial Institution, was the decision of the complainants, and the Opposite Party, was ready to facilitate the same. It was further stated that the complainants made default, in making payment of installments, and reminders were issued to them, to deposit the same, as and when, the same fell due. It was further stated that, interest on delayed payments, which was due to be paid by the complainants, was waived off, by the Opposite Party, as an exceptional case, under special approval. It was further stated that development activities, in the Sector, in which the plot, in question, was allotted, in favour of the complainants, were in full swing, and the delivery of physical possession of plots, was likely to be given, in the near future, at the most by middle of the year 2014. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
10. In the rejoinder/replication, filed by the complainants, they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
11. The complainants, in support of their case, submitted their joint affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
12. The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Mr.Mohit Kaura, its General Manager, Customer Services, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
13. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
14. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, a Consumer Complaint, could be filed, in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, or the Party against which, the reliefs sought, was working for gain or residing. The perusal of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, reveals that the same was executed at Chandigarh, between the complainants, and the Opposite Party, in respect of the plot, in question. Since, as per the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, referred to above, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint or not. It may be stated here, that the basic price of the plot, in question, after discount of Rs.1,10,000/-, was Rs.65,30,250/-. The complainants have only sought refund of Rs.62,60,750/-, paid by them, as part price towards the said plot, alongwith interest @24% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay/reimburse the amount of rent, paid by them, to the landlord @ Rs.14,520/- per month, for the year 2012 and @ Rs.15,000/- per month, for the year 2013, w.e.f. 25.08.2012 (infact 21.05.2013) (the stipulated date of possession), with future rent, alongwith interest @24% P.A.; pay penalty @Rs.500/- [(infact @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only)] per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, in handing over possession of the fully developed plot, calculated @24% P.A.; compensation, in the sum of Rs.15 lacs, for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency, in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/-, alongwith interest @24% P.A. The aggregate value of the services plus (+) compensation, rent and cost, claimed by the complainants, in the complaint, [excluding the interest claimed], came to be around Rs.84,03,570/-, and, as such, fell below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection, taken by the Opposite Party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, interest @24% P.A., claimed by the complainants, on the amounts of Rs.62,60,750/-, monthly rent, referred to above, compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), and on litigation cost, aforesaid, was required to be added, to the value of the reliefs claimed, or not, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission. In Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellant Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Respondents II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the facts were that the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, claiming an amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, with interest @18% per annum, on this amount, from the date of claim, till realization. It also claimed suitable damages, on account of loss caused to it. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 08.08.2002, disposed of the complaint, with liberty reserved to the complainant to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that if interest @18% P.A. was allowed, on the amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, it (amount) will exceed Rs.20 lakhs (at that time the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upto Rs.20 lacs), for which it had no pecuniary Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant/appellant filed the aforesaid appeal. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid appeal, held as under:-
œBare reading of the prayer made would show that the interest claimed by appellant pertains to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future. Rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of State Commission and the stage for exercise of such a discretion would be the time when the complaint is finally disposed of. Thus, the State Commission had acted erroneously in adding to the amount of Rs. 18,33,000/- the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till date of filing of complaint for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction before reaching the said stage. Order under appeal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint is now to be dealt with by the District Forum instead of State Commission.
Accordingly, while accepting appeal, the order dated 8.8.2002 is set aside. On complaint being returned by the State Commission, the appellant is permitted to file it before the appropriate District Forum for being decided on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs?.
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In the instant complaint, the interest @24% P.A., claimed by the complainants, on the amounts, referred to above, was not required to be added, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission. The question thus stands answered, in the manner, referred to above.
17. As far as the contention of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, with regard to the non-filing of an application for seeking permission to file the Consumer Complaint, jointly, by the complainants, is concerned, it may be stated here that the same (Consumer Complaint) was jointly filed and it was entertained by this Commission. No doubt, no separate application was filed by the complainants, to file the complaint jointly. However, the complainants have filed a joint affidavit, by way of evidence. It was, under these circumstances, that no specific order was passed, in that regard. The permission was deemed to have been granted to the complainants, in view of the joint affidavit having been filed by them, in support of the averments, contained in the Consumer Complaint. Otherwise also, the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, the main object whereof, is to provide speedy, affordable and hassle-free redressal of the grievances of the consumers. The Consumer Foras are not required to be too rigid, to deny the substantial relief, by resorting to hyper-technicalities. The objection taken by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, delivery of possession of the residential plot, was to be given, to the complainants. Annexure C-9 is the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011. According to Clause 8 of this Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions, and the reasons beyond the control of the Company, the Opposite Party was liable to deliver possession of the plot, within a period of 12 months, but not later than 18 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid Clause that the Opposite Party was required to deliver legal physical possession of the residential plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within a maximum period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9 i.e. by 21.05.2013. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.62,60,750/-, i.e. more than 95%, towards the part price of plot, has already been paid by the complainants, by the stipulated date/time. Since, there was no development at the site, the Opposite Party was unable to handover the legal physical possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant, by 21.05.2013. It was frankly admitted by the Opposite Party, that the development, in the area, where the plot was allotted, in favour of the complainants, was in full swing, and delivery of physical possession thereof, was expected to be given, in the middle of year 2014. The Opposite Party, thus, misled the complainants that they would be given the legal physical possession of the plot, in question, within 18 months, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement, but it failed to abide by its promise and, thus, deprived the innocent consumers, of their hard earned money. By not delivering the legal physical possession of the fully developed residential plot, to the complainants, by 21.05.2013, i.e. by the stipulated date, even after receipt of more than 95% of the price thereof, the Opposite Party was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
19. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to the refund of amount, deposited by them, in the circumstances, referred to above. The Opposite Party, failed to deliver the legal physical possession of the plot, in question, allotted in favour of the complainants, by the stipulated date. It, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard earned money of the complainants, in the sum of Rs.62,60,750/-, deposited by them, towards the part price of plot, in question, without rendering them, any service. Since, the plot, in question, had not been developed, even by the time, the complaint was filed, no alternative was left with the complainants, than to ask for the refund of amount, deposited by them. Even till date, the Opposite Party is unable to hand over the legal physical possession of the plot, in question. In our considered opinion, the complainants are entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.62,60,750/-, deposited by them. By not refunding the amount, deposited by the complainants, with interest, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service.
20. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to interest, on the amount deposited by them, if so, at what rate. The amount of Rs.62,60,750/-, towards more than 95% of the price of plot, in question, was deposited by the complainants, which fact is not disputed. The complainants were deprived of their hard earned money, on the basis of misleading information, given by the Opposite Party, that they would be handed over the legal physical possession of the residential plot, in question, by 21.05.2013, but it failed to do so. The complainants were, thus, caused financial loss. The hard earned money of the complainants was utilized by the Opposite Party, for a sufficient longer period. Had this amount been deposited by the complainants, in some bank, or had they invested the same, in some business, they would have earned handsome returns thereon. In case of delay, in deposit of installment(s), the Opposite Party was charging compound interest (quarterly) @24% P.A., as is evident from Clause 3 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, if interest @ 12% P.A., on the amount deposited by the complainants, from the respective dates of deposits, is granted, that will serve the ends of justice.
21. It was submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, that since the parties are governed, by the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9, as per Clause 8 of the same (Plot Buyers Agreement), in case of delay, in the delivery of physical possession of residential plot, it (Opposite Party), was only liable to make payment of penalty, in the sum of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sq.yd, per month, for such period of delay, beyond 18 months, from the date of execution of the same. He further submitted that the Opposite Party was ready to pay this amount, for the period of delay, in delivery of possession of the residential plot. It may be stated here, that such a submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, would have been considered to be correct, had the complainants, prayed for the delivery of physical possession of the residential plot. In the instant case, as stated above, prayer for the refund of amount, was made by the complainants, in the complaint, as there was no progress, in development of the area, where the plot, in question, was allotted to them. This Clause could be invoked, by the Opposite Party, only, in the event, the complainants, in the complaint, had sought the relief of delivery of physical possession of the residential plot. As stated above, the hard earned money of the complainants was used by the Opposite Party, for investment, for a long time. They were neither given the physical possession of residential plot, nor refund of the amount. If the Opposite Party is allowed to invoke Clause 8 of the Agreement, in the instant case, that would amount to enriching it, at the cost of the complainants. Under these circumstances, shelter cannot be taken by the Opposite Party, under Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 22.11.2011, Annexure C-9. Had the complainants prayed for possession of the residential plot, in question, in the complaint, the matter would have been different. The complainants, in our considered opinion, as stated above, are entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.62,60,750/-, alongwith interest @ 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits.
22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment. As stated above, the hard earned money of the complainants was used by the Opposite Party, for a long time, without either delivering the physical possession of residential plot or refunding the same (amount). The complainants purchased the residential plot, by depositing a huge amount, with the Opposite Party, in the hope of raising construction thereon, to have a shelter. Their hopes were, however, dashed to the ground, when there was no development of the residential plot, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof, arose. The complainants shall also not be able to purchase the plot, like the one, in question, at the same rate, at which it was allotted to them, due to escalation in prices. The complainants, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. In this view of the matter, the complainants, in our considered opinion, are entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to them, at the hands of the Opposite Party, as also escalation in prices of the real estate, to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs), which could be said to be adequate and reasonable.
23. The Counsel for the complainants, submitted that the complainants, besides refund of the amount, deposited by them, alongwith interest and compensation, are also entitled to penalty @ Rs.50/- per square yard, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above, per month, for such period of delay, beyond 18 months, from the date of execution of the same. This submission of the Counsel for the complainants, does not appear to be correct. Such a submission of the Counsel for the complainants, would have been considered to be correct, had the complainants, prayed for the delivery of physical possession of residential plot. In the instant case, as stated above, prayer for the refund of amount, was made by the complainants, as there was no progress, in development of the area, where the plot, in question, was allotted to them. This Clause could be invoked by the complainants, only, in the event, they had sought the relief of delivery of physical possession of the residential plot. The complainants, in our considered opinion, as stated above, are only entitled to the refund of amount, alongwith interest @12% P.A., which (interest) would take care of financial loss, suffered by them. As far as the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and escalation in prices is concerned, the complainants have been separately awarded the same, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, as held in paragraph 22 above.
24. No doubt, the complainants have also claimed rent, @ Rs.14,520/- per month, for the year 2012 and @ Rs.15,000/- per month, for the year 2013, from 21.05.2013 (the stipulated date of delivery of possession), alleged to have been paid by them, to the landlord, with future rent. The complainants only produced, on record, copies of the rent deeds, for the years 2012 and 2013, Annexures C-17 and C-18, respectively, executed between Lt. Col. S.K. Nagpal (landlord) and complainant No.2. In case, the amounts of Rs.14,520/- per month, for the year 2012 and Rs.15,000/- per month, for the year 2013, as rent, had been paid by the complainants, to the landlord aforesaid, they could produce the receipts showing payment of the same. There is no tangible evidence, on record, to prove that the complainants had actually taken on rent, the accommodation and paid the rent. Copies of the rent deeds/agreements, mentioning therein the figures of monthly lease to the tune of Rs.14,520/- and Rs.15,000/-, for the years 2012 and 2013, respectively, without the production of actual receipts regarding payment of rent, do not carry any weight. Under these circumstances, the claim of the complainants, for the payment of amount of rent, cannot be said to be justified. The complainants are not entitled to the amount of rent, claimed by them.
25. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
26. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with cost, in the following manner:-
(i). The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.62,60,750/-, to the complainants, alongwith interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(ii). The Opposite Party is further directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs), for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices of the real estate, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iii). The Opposite Party is further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainants.
(iv). In case the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @15 % P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest @12 % P.A., on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
27. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
28. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.