Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties floated a scheme for the allotment of residential plots, in their upcoming project, under the name and style of œMohali Hills?. In response to the advertisements, made by the Opposite Parties, in the leading newspapers, with regard to the project, aforesaid, the complainants moved an application, which was accepted by the Opposite Parties, as a result whereof, residential plot no.229, measuring approximately 300 square yards, in Mohali Hills, Sector 109, Augusta Greens, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, @Rs.11,500/- per square yard was allotted, in their favour by them (Opposite Parties), for which a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as booking amount, was deposited. The total sale price of the said plot was to the tune of Rs.40,50,354/-, including Rs.4,31,250/- as Preferential Location Charges (PLC), as also External Development Charges (EDC), to the tune of Rs.1,69,104/-. Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, in respect of the plot, aforesaid, was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh. Installment payment plan/payment schedule was also attached with the Plot Buyer`s Agreement.
2. Thereafter, as per the installment payment plan, the complainants, in all, deposited the amount of Rs.40,50,354/-. The said amount included Rs.38,77,854/- already deposited by the complainants + Rs.1,72,500/- i.e. 5% of the BSP, which offer vide letter dated 04.02.2009 Annexure C-2 (colly.), was given by the Opposite Parties, as clearly indicated in Annexure C-10 statement of account, wherein, it was mentioned at two places that œQualified for 5% waiver= Rs.1,72,500/- and Qualified and amount for 5% Waiver= Rs.1,72,500/-?. According to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007 Annexure C-1, the Opposite Parties were to handover the physical possession of residential plot, within a period of 2 years and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the same. Thus, the Opposite Parties were to deliver the possession of residential plot, to the complainants, latest by 20.06.2010. It was further agreed to, by way of the Agreement, referred to above, that, in case, the possession of fully developed residential plot was delayed, on account of the reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they would be liable to pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per square yard, per month, for the period of delay, beyond three years, to the allottee(s).
3. In the year 2009, the complainants visited the site, where the plots were to be carved out, but there was no progress, in the project. Again the complainants visited the site in the year 2010. They were shocked to see that by 20.06.2010, no development had been made at the site, and, as such, the question of delivery of possession of the plot, allotted to them, did not at all arise. The complainants, thereafter, kept on visiting the office of the Opposite Parties, with a request to handover the physical possession of the fully developed plot, in question, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.
4. Even in the year 2012 there was no development at the site and as such the question of delivery of possession of the plot, in question, did not at all arise. The complainants visited the office of the Opposite Parties, with a request to redress their grievance, failing which they would go to the Consumer Court. At that stage Ms. Pooja and Shveta, officials of the Opposite Parties, suggested the complainants, to apply for change of plot, in 109-MLU-17-300 at Mohali Hills, instead of plot no.109-AG-229-300. Accordingly, the complainants made a request to the Opposite Parties, vide email dated 31.08.2012 Annexure C-3 (colly.) to allot plot, in 109-MLU-17-300 at Mohali Hills, instead of plot no.109-AG-229-300 because in that area there were some signs of development. Accordingly, the request of the complainants was acceded to, by the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 16.10.2012, Annexure C-4, and plot no.17, measuring 300 square yards, in Block No.MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, instead of 109-AG-229-300, was allotted, in their favour vide Annexure C-4. Preferential Location Charges, to the tune of Rs.4,31,250/-, had already been paid to the Opposite Parties, as was evident from their admission, in the letter dated 16.10.2012 Annexure C-4. It was further stated that as per the unit shifting payment plan Annexure C-4A, attached with the letter dated 16.10.2012- Annexure C-4, the basic Sale price of the plot, remained to be Rs.40,50,354/-, meaning thereby that the complainants were not required to pay or receive anything, as far as the allocation of the new unit, instead of the old one was concerned. Thereafter, an amended Plot Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-5, was executed between the parties, on 26.11.2012, in respect of the newly allotted plot no.17, measuring 300 square yards, in Block No.MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, with certain modifications, in the terms and conditions of the old Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007. However, it was made clear, in the amended Agreement Annexure C-5, that the allottees agreed and undertook that the terms and conditions of the Buyer`s Agreement shall apply to the allotment of the Alternate Plot pari pasu and the same were sacrosanct save and except to the extent amended, meaning thereby that the date of delivery of possession of the fully developed plot, was never changed by way of the Amended Agreement-Annexure C-5, as possession of the newly allotted plot instead of the old one, was also to be delivered by 20.06.2010 only.
5. Thereafter, the complainants again started approaching the Opposite Parties, through every possible means, to know about the status of delivery of possession of the newly allotted plot no.17, measuring 300 square yards, in Block No.MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, but they again lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other, and failed to give any positive response, with regard to the possession of the same. The complainants also had telephonic talk, with the officials of the Opposite Parties, on 26.10.2012, with regard to the delay, in handing over the possession of plot, in question, as also payment of compensation for the same, as a result whereof, email dated 10/29/2012 Annexure C-6, was received stating therein that penalty for delay, in handing over the possession shall be payable/adjustable, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Buyers Agreement. It was further stated that, email dated 11/03/2012 Annexure C-7, was also sent to the Opposite Parties, with regard to the delay, in handing over the possession of plot, in question, as also payment of compensation, whereupon, reply Annexure C-7A dated 11/05/2012 at 10:44, was received from them (Opposite Parties), stating therein that as shared with the complainants earlier the delay, in possession, if any, would be covered as per the terms and conditions of the Buyer's Agreement, which stood executed on 20th June 2007. It was also confirmed that there were no other changes, in the terms and conditions of the Buyer's Agreement, apart from the Clauses, mentioned in the Amendment Agreement.
6. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, in 2013, again assured the complainants that the possession of plot no. 17, measuring 300 square yards, in Block No.MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, would be delivered, before July 2013, but to no avail. It was further stated that, thereafter, email dated 13.07.2013 Annexure C-8 was sent to the Opposite Parties by the complainants, for delivery of possession of the plot, in question, in their favour, as also to pay compensation, as per the Agreement, as a result whereof, reply dated 15.07.2013 Annexure C-9, was received from them (Opposite Parties) whereby it was informed that sewerage and water supply lines were being laid, in the area, where the new unit, in question, was located and it was expected to complete the pending works, on the third quarter of 2013, and that their officials shall send the offer of possession to the complainants. It was also intimated that the penalty for delay, in offering possession, if any, shall be applicable as per the terms and conditions of the Buyer's Agreement, and the same shall be taken up for consideration, at the time of registration. It was further stated that email dated 15.07.2013, clearly proved that till that date, even the sewerage and water supply lines were not laid, at the site, and how one could imagine about other amenities, facilities etc. etc., as also delivery of possession of the plot, in question.
7. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties collected the huge amount, from the complainants, by making a false promise, that physical possession of the fully developed residential plot, shall be handed over within the maximum period of 3 years, from 20.06.2007, but they did not abide by their commitment. It was further stated that even external development of the area where the plot, in question, was carved out, had not been completed by 2013. 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 Parties to handover physical possession of the fully developed plot no. 17, measuring 300 square yards in Block No.MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab; pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainants to the tune of Rs.38,77,854/- (i.e. Rs. 40,50,353/- (-) Rs.1,72,500/- 5% of the BSP), from the respective dates of deposits, till handing over possession of the plot in question; penalty @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month from 20.06.2010 (the promised date of delivery of possession) alongwith interest @18% P.A. till realization, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, on account of mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.
8. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainants who are not related to each other, did not fall with the definition of consumers, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, as they were speculators, and invested in the property, with an intention, to earn profits, after selling the same. It was further pleaded that this Commission, has no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was further pleaded that the complaint was premature, as after signing the amended Agreement on 26.11.2012, vide which alternative plot was allotted to the complainants, they accepted the terms and conditions thereof. It was stated that the complainants, by signing the amended Agreement dated 26.11.2012, waived of the delay, if any, caused in handing over the possession to them, in respect, of the plot, in question, as per the original Buyers Agreement. It was admitted that the complainants applied for a residential plot, and were originally allotted plot no.229, measuring approximately 300 square yards, in Mohali Hills, Sector 109, Augusta Greens, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, @Rs.11,500/- per square yard. It was also admitted that the complainants paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as booking amount. It was also admitted that the price of the plot was to the tune Rs.40,50,354/- including Rs.4,31,250/- as Preferential Location Charges (PLC), as also External Development Charges (EDC), to the tune of Rs.1,69,104/-. Execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007 Annexure C-1, in respect of the plot, in question, between the parties, was also admitted. It was stated that, the complainants, accordingly, made payment of Rs.38,77,854/-, for the provisionally allotted unit and qualified for 5% i.e. Rs.1,72,500/- of the basic sale price, under special approval. It was further stated that the payments were not made, in time, by the complainants, as per the payment schedule, agreed to between them, at the time of signing the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainants had signed the amended Agreement dated 26.11.2012, on their own, without questioning the terms and conditions of the Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, as they themselves had asked for better located plot and agreed to waive the rights, under the original Buyer`s Agreement, in view of the better located plot. It was further stated that after signing the amended Agreement dated 26.11.2012, the Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007 was superseded. It was further stated that, on the basis of the original Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, no claim could be raised by the complainants. It was further stated that as per the original Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, the complainants were to be delivered plot, within three years, from the date of signing the same, but since after the coming into force the amended Agreement, which was signed by the complainants, the earlier Agreement had no more remained in force. It was further stated that, as per the amended Agreement dated 26.11.2012, it was made clear that the possession of the plot could only be handed over after development of basic infrastructure i.e. roads, drainage, sewerage, water supply, street lighting and other conveniences, as per Clause (1) and the complainants accepted the same, by signing it. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
9. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainants, they reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
10. In support of the averments, contained in the complaint, complainant no.1 submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
11. The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Mohit Kaura, their DGM-Customer Services.
12. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
13. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain the complaint, or not. According to Section 17 of the Act, the Consumer Complaint could be filed, by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction, whereof a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, the Plot Buyer`s Agreement Annexure C-1, was executed, between the parties, at Chandigarh. It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, that this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainants, was barred by time or not. The Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007 was executed between the parties, according to which, the possession was to be delivered to the complainants, in respect of the plot, in question, allotted in their favour, within a period of three years, from the date of signing the same. Thereafter, amended Agreement dated 26.11.2012 was executed between the parties. Neither the possession of the plot, in favour of the complainants, was handed over to the complainants, nor the penalty as provided in the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007 was paid to them. There was, thus, continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainants, to file the complaint. In Lata Construction and Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well, that the land, in question, was under litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The next question, that falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainants fell within the definition of consumers or not? The Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the complainants are not related to each other and they purchased the plot, in question, only for the purpose of investment. This submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, does not appear to be correct. The plot which was allotted, in favour of the complainants, is a residential one. There is nothing, on record, that such plot is a commercial one or commercial activity could be run therein. No evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainants are property dealers dealing in the sale and purchase of the property, and, as such, they purchased the plot, in question, for the purpose of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there is escalation, in the prices of real estate. No other evidence, was produced by the Opposite Parties, that the complainants were owners of other residential properties and the plot, in question, was purchased by them, just by way of investment to earn huge profits by selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices. The mere fact that the complainants are not related to each other, did not make any difference. The complainants may be friends or, acquaintanted with each other. No law debars two persons, who are friends, or acquainted to each other to purchase a residential plot, with a view to construct the house thereon, to live therein jointly or in separate portions. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complainants availed of the services of the Opposite Parties, for consideration, for the purpose of allotment of residential plot, in question, for raising the construction of house and residing therein and therefore, they fell within the definition of consumers. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, therefore, being without merit must fail and the same stands rejected.
16. Undisputedly the complainants applied for the allotment of a plot, which was allotted to them. They deposited a sum of Rs.38,77,854/- from time to time towards the price of plot. Plot Buyer Agreement dated 20.06.2007 Annexure C-1 was executed between the parties at Chandigarh in respect of plot No.229 approximately measuring 300 Sq. yds in Augusta Greens, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, @11500 per Sq. yds. According to clause 8 of this Plot Buyer Agreement dated 20.06.2007, the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within a period of 2 years, from the date of execution of the same but not later than three years. It means that the possession of the plot, in question, was to be delivered to the complainants, by the Opposite Parties, on or before 20.06.2010. Admittedly, the possession of this plot was not delivered to the complainants. Later on, as advised by the officials of the Opposite Parties, the complainants opted for the allotment of Unit No.109-MLU-17-300 at Mohali Hills, Mohali in lieu of Unit No.109-AG-229-300, referred to above, which was earlier allotted to them and Amendment Agreement dated 26.11.2012 Annexure C-5 was executed between the parties. It is evident from clause B of this Agreement that plot No. 17 situated in block No. MLU admeasuring 300 Sq. yards, in Sector 109 Mohali (alternate plot) was allotted to the complainants on the same terms and conditions as agreed to, between the parties, vide Plot Buyer Agreement dated 20.06.2007. Only a few clauses of the earlier Plot Buyers Agreement were amended by way of the Amendment Agreement. As per clause 7 of this Amendment Agreement the allottees agreed and undertook that the terms and conditions of the Buyers Agreement were to apply to the allotment of alternate plot, pari pasu and the same were sacrosanct, save and except to the extent amended and agreed, under the Amendment Agreement. If both the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.6.2007, and Amendment Agreement dated 26.11.2012 are read together, then only one and one conclusion that can be arrived at is that after the allotment of alternate plot No.17, referred to above, in lieu of earlier plot No. 229, the terms and conditions contained in the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.6.2007 were to prevail. The Amendment Agreement did not, in totality, supersede the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.6.2007. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties could not claim that once the Amendment Agreement dated 26.11.2012, was executed between the parties, Plot Buyers Agreement stood cancelled. Rights which had already accrued to the complainants, under the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.6.2007, on account of non delivery of possession of the plot, in question, which was originally allotted to them, by the stipulated date, and even upto the date of execution of the Amendment Agreement, remained intact.
17. The next question, that arises for consideration, is as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yards, per month, for the period of delay, beyond three years, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.6.2007 or not? The possession of the original plot, which was allotted to the complainants, was to be delivered on or before 20.6.2010. Admittedly, the possession was not delivered by 20.6.2010, or till the Amendment Agreement allotting the alternate plot was executed. Even till date possession of the plot has not been delivered to the complainants. The complainants according to Clause 8 of the Agreement dated 20.6.2007 became entitled to compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month. Not only this vide
e-mail Annexure C-6 dated 29.10.2012 it was committed by the Opposite Parties as under;
œWe would like to inform that penalty for delay in handing over the possession shall be payable/adjustable as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the buyers agreement?.
Even vide e-mail Annexure C-7A dated 5.11.2012 the Opposite Parties again committed as under:-
œThank you for writing in to us!
Further to your mail, please be informed and as shared with you earlier that for delays in possession, if any, will be covered as per the terms and conditions of the buyers agreement, which stands executed on 20th June 2007
We would also like to confirm that there are no other changes in the terms and conditions of the buyers agreement, apart from the clauses already amended in the amendment agreement.
Trust that clarified?.Still vide Annexure C-9 dated 15.7.2013 the Opposite Parties in response to email of complainant No.1 (Annexure C-8) dated 13.7.2013, committed as under:-
œFurther, please be informed that the penalty for delays in offering possession, if any, shall be applicable as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers agreement. The same shall be taken up for consideration at the time of registration?
18. This email Annexure C-9 was sent by the Opposite Parties, to complainant No.1, after the execution of the Amendment Agreement dated 26.11.2012. By not making the payment of compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 20.6.2007 on account of non-delivery of possession till the filing of the complaint, the Opposite Parties were certainly deficient in rendering service.
19. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that once the Amendment Agreement was executed, between the parties, all rights which vested in or had accrued in favour of the complainants, stood cancelled and as such the Opposite Parties, were not liable to pay compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month to the complainants as per Clause 8 of the Agreement dated 20.6.2007. He further submitted that in the Amendment Agreement Annexure C-5, it was in clear cut terms, stated that if there was conflict between the terms of the Buyers Agreement and the Amendment Agreement, the terms of the Amendment Agreement shall prevail. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, does not appear to be correct. Once the Opposite Parties committed vide the aforesaid email Annexure C-9 dated 15.7.2013, which was certainly later in date, than the Amendment Agreement dated 26.11.2012, Annexure C-5, committing therein that the penalty for delays in offering possession, if any, shall be applicable as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers Agreement, and the same shall be taken up for consideration, at the time of registration, they (Opposite Parties) could not later on turn round, to say that they were not liable to pay compensation, as per clause 8 of the Buyers Agreement. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, being without substance stands rejected.
20. By not delivering the possession of the original plot which was allotted to the complainants by 20.6.2010, the stipulated date or of the alternate plot allotted vide the Amendment Agreement dated 26.11.2012 Annexure C-5, the Opposite Parties miserably failed to abide by the commitment. The Opposite Parties duped the complainants of their hard earned money, by making misleading statements that possession of the plot shall be delivered by the stipulated date, but failed to do so. They, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the possession of alternate Plot No.17 complete in all respects.
21. The next question, that arises for consideration, is as to whether, the complainants are entitled to interest on the amount deposited by them. In our considered opinion the complainants are not entitled to interest, on the amount, deposited by them, towards the sale consideration of the plot, in question, as they have sought physical possession of plot No.17 measuring 300 Square yards in Block No. MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab. Since, the parties signed the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1, with eyes wide open, they are bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The delivery of possession of the plot, shall be made to the complainants, at the original price, which was prevailing in the year 2006-07, when they booked the same. They will get the benefit of escalation, in the prices of real estate, in the meanwhile. It is not a case, in which the complainants have sought refund of the amount, deposited by them. Under these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to compensation/penalty @ Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, from 20.06.2010, till the delivery of possession of plot No.17 measuring 300 Square yards in Block No. MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, as per Clause 8 of the Buyers Agreement, referred to above. In Bharathi Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd.1996 (IV) 4 SCC 704, a case decided by a three Judge Bench of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, a question arose, that when the parties have contracted and limited their liabilities, whether the State/National Commission could go beyond the terms of the contract and give relief for damages, in excess of the limit, prescribed under the contract or not. It was held that when there is a specific term, in the contract, signed by the parties, they are bound by the same, and relief for damages, in excess of the limit, prescribed under the same (contract), cannot be given. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Thus, as stated above, the complainants are only entitled to compensation/penalty @Rs.50/-, per square yard, per month, from 20.06.2010 (promised date) onwards, on account of delay, in delivery of possession of the plot, as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, referred to above. The complainants are thus not entitled to interest claimed by them on the amount deposited by them, towards the price of the plot, in question.
22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment and injury caused to them, for a long number of years, by not delivering the physical possession of plot, to them. The complainants booked the plot, with the hope to have a roof over their head, by raising construction thereon, but their hopes were dashed to the ground. Till date, i.e. even after the expiry of a period of more than three and a half years, from the promised date, i.e. 20.06.2010, delivery of physical possession of the plot, has not yet been made, to the complainants, by the Opposite Parties. The complainants underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. Compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainants, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, if granted, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainants, are, thus, held entitled to the compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs as indicated above.
23. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
24. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
i. The Opposite Parties, are directed to handover the physical possession of plot No.17 measuring 300 Square yards in Block No. MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, to the complainants, within three months, complete in all respects from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, on payment of amount, if any, due against them (complainants)
ii. The Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay penalty/compensation @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yard, per month, from 20.06.2010 (the promised date of delivery of possession), till delivery of possession of plot No.17 measuring 300 Square yards in Block No. MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, to the complainants, as per Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement dated 20.06.2007, Annexure C-1.
iii. The Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainants, at their hands.
iv. The Opposite Parties, are further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainants.
v. Compensation granted to the complainants, as mentioned in Clause (ii), which has fallen due upto 31.12.2013, shall be paid by the Opposite Parties, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A., from 20.06.2010, till delivery of possession of plot No.17 measuring 300 Square yards, in Block No. MLU, Sector 109, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.
vi. Compensation accruing due @Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only), per square yards, w.e.f. 01.01.2014, per month, onwards, shall be paid by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @9% P.A., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession.
vii. Compensation granted, in favour of the complainants, as mentioned in Clause (iii), shall be paid by Opposite Parties, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, to them, failing which they shall pay interest @9% P.A., on the same, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization.
25. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
26. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.