Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd.

on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer Mobile View

Cites 9 docs - [View All]
Section 2 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 17 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 6 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 2(1)(d) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

1 Download PDF - Download PDF

To View PDF, Download Here free.propdfconverter.com

2 Start Download - View PDF

Convert doc to pdf and pdf to doc free.fromdoctopdf.com/PDF/Converter

Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer View the actual judgment from court

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience.
Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
technical
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018
chart
analysis -
2nd Additional Bench
intraday,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
EOD trade
Free
Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017
Demo
Date of Institution : 23.05.2017
MCX NSE INR
Date of Reserve : 05.04.2018 automatic buy
Date of Decision : 18.04.2018 sell signal
Easy Analysis
easy to study
Mr. Satish Kumar Bagga son of Sh. Jiwan Singh, resident of B-62, indicators
DLF Colony, Patiala, Punjab.
....Complainant ecgtrade.com

Versus

1. M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited, through its Director,

having its Registered Office at P.O. Rayon and Silk Mills, Adjoining

Coca Cola Depot, G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar - 143105.

2. M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited, through its

Authorized Signatory, Site Office at Sector 85, District S.A.S Nagar,

Mohali - 160062 (Pb.)

....Opposite parties
3. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited having its Registered
Office at M-63 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110
001
...Proforma Op

Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 1 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

Quorum:-

Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2017 2

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate

For opposite parties No.1&2: Sh. Tejeshwar Singh, Advocate

For opposite party No. 3: Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate

GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

ORDER

Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) under
Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that the
complainant had launched their project Wave Estate in Sector 99, Mohali. The complainant is re-
allottee of the flat, which was originally allotted in the name of Mr. Rajwinder Singh for a total sale
price of Rs. 55,73,400/- including BSP of Rs. 53,08,000/- i.e. Flat No. 13, Ground Floor, to be
constructed on a flat having area of 252.900 square yards with salable area of 1343 sq. ft. Vide letter
dated 1.11.2013, this flat was transferred in the name of the complainant from the name of Rajwinder
Singh. Independent residential floor allottee(s) arrangement was executed between the complainant
and Ops on 5.3.2015. The complainant alongwith the Ops entered into tripartite agreement with Op
No. 3 from whom it had raised a loan and the payment was to be made to the Ops as per the terms of
the tripartite agreement. Out of the total sum of Rs. 53,08,000/-, the complainant has already made a
payment of Rs. 49,81,616/- against the demand of Rs. 52,48,444.58p. As per Clause No. 5.1, the Ops
were to deliver the possession within 24 months alongwith extended period of 6 months from the date
of execution of the agreement. However, in this case, the period of 24 months is to be counted from
5.5.2013 because after receiving more than 25%, the Ops delayed the execution of the agreement for a
period of about 2 years. Ops failed to deliver the possession of the flat as agreed. Alleging deficiency
in services on the part of Ops, this complaint has been filed by the complainant with a direction to the
Ops as under:-

(i) To refund the entire amount of Rs. 49,81,616/-

deposited by the complainant towards the flat in question, alongwith interest @ 18% per
annum from the respective due dates of deposit till realization.

(ii) To pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 3 Lacs on account of mental agony, physical
harassment, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and financial loss caused to the
complainant.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac to the complainants.

(iv) Or any other directions which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 2 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written replies. Op Nos. 1 & 2 in their written reply filed
through Mr. Raghav Sharma, their authorized signatory took the preliminary objections that the
complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act as the complainant already owns a
big residential unit at Patiala i.e. B-62, DLF Colony, Patiala and the present flat was booked by the
complainant for investment purposes; the complainant failed to adhere to the payment plan as a sum of
Rs. 2,66,828.58p is outstanding. The complainant was required to make timely payment, otherwise, he
was liable to make this payment alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and in case of default, Ops further
reserve its right to forfeit the earnest money; the complaint is premature as it was filed before expiry
of 30 months period as provided under the agreement from the date of execution of the agreement.
Under the agreement, the Ops also paid pre-EMI interest to Op No. 3 amounting to Rs. 5,18,753/-.
There was no fixed period to deliver the possession and under Clause 5.1, it has been mentioned that
Ops shall make endeavor to complete the project as far as possible within 30 months, failing which the
Ops shall be liable to pay penal charges @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month on the super area of the flat.
The complainant has prayed for refund, which is not maintainable under the agreement and terms and
conditions of the tripartite agreement; the delay occurred as Ops had entered into MOA with the
Government of Punjab under which Government of Punjab was to acquire some land, which was
falling in the critical area of the Ops under the Land Acquisition Act and road network was also
provided by the GMADA and the State Government failed to acquire the land for the Ops i.e. 23.21
acres, which falls within the master plan of the project and the GMADA failed to connect the project
with the roads to be constructed by them. Ultimately, the Ops purchased some land from the farmers
directly to provide access to the project. Therefore, the project was delayed due to the reasons beyond
the control of Ops; the State Commission does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
present complaint as intricate questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the matter be
relegated to the Civil Court and that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the
part of Ops, therefore, complaint is not maintainable and the same be dismissed. On merits, it has been
submitted that it is a matter of record that earlier the flat was allotted in favour of Rajwinder Singh and
lateron it was transferred in the name of the complainant. Residential floor allottee(s) arrangement was
executed between the complainant and Ops on 5.3.2015 and according to Clause 5.1 of the agreement,
it was provided to make every endeavor to deliver the possession to the allottee within a period of 3
months but it delayed due to the reasons as referred in the preliminary objections. Further the
complainant also failed to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,66,828.58p. No deficiency in service or
any unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.

3. Op No. 3 in its reply stated that this Op is just a proforma party as the complaint is mainly against
Op Nos. 1 & 2, however, the complainant had approached this Op to avail a loan facility to the tune of
Rs. 42 Lacs for the purchase of Flat No. 13, ground floor, Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali and that
tripartite agreement was executed between the complainant, Op Nos. 1 & 2 and this Op. There is no
deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Complaint is without merit. In parawise reply, it was again
reiterated that the allegations are against Op Nos. 1 & 2. Op No. 3 is a financial institution from which
complainant has raised a loan, therefore, this complaint is without merit and it be dismissed under
Section 26 of the Act with special costs.

4. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of his complaint. Complainant
in his evidence has tendered affidavit of Satish Kumar Bagga as Ex. C-A and documents Exs. C-1/A to
C-5. On the other hand, Ops Nos. 1 & 2 have tendered affidavit of Amarjit Singh, Auth. Signatory as
Ex. OP-1/A and documents Exs. Op-1/1 to Op-1/20. Op No. 3 had tendered affidavit of Sanjeev
Kumar as Ex. Op-3/A.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the
parties, evidence and documents on the record with the assistance of the counsel for the complainant.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 3 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

6. Some preliminary objections have been taken by Op Nos. 1 & 2, which are required to be redressed
before taking the complaint on merits. It has been stated that the complainant is not a consumer as
defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act because he has already a bigger residential Unit at Patiala.
However, the complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned that his family has expanded
manifold so to fulfill its dreams and requirement of the space and for self living purpose, he has
purchased this Flat No. 13, Ground Floor from Mr. Rajwinder Singh for a total sale price of Rs.
55,73,400/- including BSP of Rs. 53,08,000/-, which was lateron transferred by the Ops in his name.
With regard to ownership of the complainant's house at Patiala as alleged in the written reply, no
document was placed on the record by Op Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant is owner of the said unit.
Even if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the complainant is the owner of the said house, there
is no legal bar for him that he cannot book another apartment at another location. No documentary
evidence has been placed on the record by Op Nos. 1 & 2 that previously the complainant was trading
in real estate. In the absence of any transaction in the real estate in the past, it cannot be said that the
apartment was booked for speculative purposes. In this regard, a reference can be given to the
judgment 2017(3) CLT 459 "Pranab Basak versus Suhas Chatterjee". In that case, two flats were
booked by the complainant and a plea was taken that the complainant had booked these flats for
investment purposes. It was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that unless it is established
that the complainant is dealing in sale and purchase or his real intention in booking the flat was to sell
the same on profit, on appreciation of the value of the real estate. Further in "Kavita Ahuja versus
Shipra Real Estate Ltd." and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd.", 2016 (1) CPJ 31 it was held by
the Hon'ble National Commission that buyers of the residential unit would be termed as consumer
unless it is proved that he/she had booked the same for commercial purposes. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the plea taken by the Ops that the apartment was booked by the complainant for
investment purposes cannot be accepted.

7. It was argued by the counsel for the Ops that according to Clause 5.1, it was provided that the
developer shall endeavor to complete the development of the project as far as possible within 30
months, therefore, no fixed period. But counsel for the complainant has argued that under PAPRA,
Ops are required to get outer date as to when the construction of the flat will be completed and in this
regard, he has relied upon the judgment I (2017) CPJ 17 (NC) "Ashish Oberai versus EMAAR MGF
Land Limited". It was mentioned that the Company shall endeavor to deliver the possession unless
prevented by act of God or the reasons specifically stated in Clause 8 or 3.3 of the Buyers Agreement.
The Op was under a contractual obligation to complete the construction, obtain the occupation
certificate, and hand over the possession of the villa, complete in all respects to the complainant within
30 months from the date of the buyers agreement. Therefore, the question which arises for
consideration is as to whether the completion of the construction and offer of possession has been
delayed for the reasons specifically stated in Clause 8 or 33. In the present case, it has been stated that
there was Memorandum of Understanding between the Ops and the State of Punjab under which State
of Punjab was to acquire some land for the Ops under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 23.21 acres
area falling in the critical area i.e. approach to the project of the Ops, which the State Government
failed to acquire and that the road network was to be provided by the GMADA. In case there is any
problem with the State Government, not to acquire the land for the Ops, the matter is between the Ops
and the State of Punjab. Under the PAPRA, unless and until title vest with the Ops, they could not
launch the project, therefore, they should have taken care all these problem before launching of the
project, therefore, it cannot be said to be a reason for the delay. Therefore, we do not agree with the
plea raised by the counsel for the Ops that Ops were only to make endeavor and period of 30 months
was not a specific period.

8. It was further argued that complaint is premature because 30 months are to be taken from the date
of agreement i.e. 5.3.2015 executed between the complainant and Op Nos. 1 & 2, whereas the
complaint was filed on 23.5.2017 prior to completion of 30 months from the date of execution of the

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 4 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

agreement. An application under Section 26 of the CP Act was moved by the Ops to dismiss the
complaint on this ground and that application was dismissed by this Commission vide its order dated
26.10.2017. No appeal / revision was filed by the Ops against this order and once that order has
become absolute then Ops do not reserve any right to raise this issue against at the time of final
arguments.

9. Another objection taken by Ops Nos. 1 & 2 is with regard to complicated questions of law and facts
involved, therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court. In case we go through the pleadings of
the parties, the complainant purchased one flat from Ops and had paid a sum of Rs. 49,81,616/-. In
this case, there is no complicated question of law and facts involved as it is only the interpretation of
documents and then to see whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. We do not see
that any complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by this
Commission. The benches of this Commission are headed by retired High Court Judges/retired
District & Session Judges, who have long experience at their back and are fully competent to decide
such like matters. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment of "Dr. J.J. Merchant and others Vs.
Shrinath Chaturvedi", 2002(6) SCC 635 wherein it was held that 'the State Commission and District
Forum are headed by retired High Court Judges and officers of District Judge level and in our view,
this is not such a case which cannot be decided by the 'Consumer Fora' after obtaining evidence and if
need be after getting an expert opinion'. Further reference can be made to "Shiv Kumar Agarwal
versus Arun Tandon and another", 2007(2) CLT 287, decided by the Hon'ble National Commission. In
that case a plea that case involves complicated questions of fact and law and will need expert
evidence, which is not possible in the summary proceedings adopted by the Consumer Fora repelled -
Consumer Forum which is headed by Senior Judicial Officers, are capable of dealing with even
complex questions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Commission is fully competent to decide
this complaint and no cause of action is made out to refer the case to the Civil Court.

10. It is an admitted fact between the parties that originally flat No. 13, ground floor, Wave Estate in
Sector 99, Mohali was booked in the name of Rajwinder Singh and lateron Rajwinder Singh moved an
application Ex. C-1/C for transfer of Flat No. 13, Ground Floor in Sector 99, Wave Estate, Mohali and
it was transferred in the name of complainant vide letter dated 1.11.2013 Ex. C-1/B. Then Independent
Resident Floor Allottee Arrangement dated 5.3.2015 was executed between the Ops and the
complainant. As per the statement of account Ex. C-5 against a demand of Rs. 52,48,444.58p, the
complainant has made a payment of Rs. 49,81,616/- and only the payment of Rs. 2,66,828.58p is
outstanding against the complainant. The complainant stated that he did not make this payment
because there was no progress at the site as agreed by them. The counsel for the complainant further
stated that the complainant is ready to make this payment in case Ops have the completion certificate
and are ready to deliver the possession of the flat even today but during the course of arguments,
counsel for the Ops was unable to refer to any completion certificate or to say that the flat is complete
in all respects as agreed by them and that they are ready to hand over the possession. Under Section 3
(2)(j) of PAPRA, it has been provided not to allow any person to enter into possession until an
occupation certificate required under any law is duly given by the appropriate authority under that law
and no person shall take possession of an apartment until such occupation certificate is obtained.
Further under Section 14(1)(ii), in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the
competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all respects as
per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5, therefore, the Ops have raised a
mega project, it is duly covered under the term of colony, therefore, they are required to get the
completion certificate with regard to development work as contemplated under the licence issued to
the Ops but the Ops have failed to place on the record any occupation certificate or the completion
certificate. In that background, the complainant has a right to withhold the further payments.

11. Even if the date 5.3.2015 is taken, 30 months will be completed by 5.9.2017 but till date, the Ops

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 5 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

are not sure as to when they will get the completion certificate of their development works in their
project. In case the Ops have taken the maximum payment in this case upto 95% but failed to deliver
the possession within the agreed time, then it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. In
this regard we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as II (2014)
CPJ 131 "PUDA versus Kanwalpreet Singh" that in case there is delay in handing over the possession,
it amounts to deficiency in service and refund order can be passed. A reference has also been made to I
(2017) CPJ 513 (NC) "Neha Suri versus Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd." In that case, the
possession of the flat was not given as agreed. It amounts to deficiency in service. Amount deposited
alongwith interest was ordered to be refunded. Similar order was passed in I (2017) CPJ 113 "Vishal
Issar v. Park Wood Developers Pvt. Ltd.". This Commission has already held in Consumer Complaint
No. 164 of 2016 "Harmit Singh Arora versus M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited", decided on
2.2.2017 against the same opposite party that in case possession of the apartment has not been given
as agreed then it amounts to deficiency in service and that the complainants are not bound to pay
further payments when the project is not coming at the site and refund alongwith interest order was
ordered. It is settled that in case the Ops fails to deliver the possession within the agreed time then the
complainant has a right to withdraw from the scheme and to claim for the refund. In this regard, we
are fortified by the judgment reported in 2017(1) CPR 168 (NC) "Sanjay Kumar versus Sahara Prime
City Limited & others" it was held that allottee is entitled to withdraw from the scheme in the event of
delay in completion of the project. He has referred to another judgment i.e. First Appeal No. 1456 of
2017 "RDB Legend Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. & 2 Ors. Versus MKN Srinivasa Rao" decided by the
Hon'ble National Commission on 18.1.2018 against the order passed by the State Commission. In that
case, the refund of the amount deposited alongwith 12% was ordered. In this case, 60% of the total
sale consideration was paid by the complainant but Ops failed to deliver the possession. Here in this
case when 95% of the payment has been made and the balance was to be paid at the time of
possession, therefore, there was no default on the part of the complainant, therefore, it cannot be said
to be a default on the part of the complainant. It was withheld because of non-completion of the work
by the Ops and even till date, the Ops are not certain as to when they will get the completion
certificate and to deliver the possession in favor of the complainant. In those circumstances, the refund
order can be passed in favour of the complainant.

12. It has been mentioned in the reply that as per Clause 5.1 every endeavor shall be made to complete
the construction within time and as per Clause No. 5.5, in case there is delay in delivery of the
possession then the Ops are liable to pay the penalty as per Clause 5.5 i.e. @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per
month of super area from the date, the possession was to be delivered upto the date of payment.
Whereas it has been contended by the counsel for the complainant that in case of late payment, the
Ops are claiming interest @ 18% then similar treatment be given to the complainant. It is one sided
agreement which proves from the fact that in case of default on the part of complainant, she has to pay
18% interest whereas Ops are to pay just 3%. This question has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble
National Commission in CC No. 427 of 2014 "Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd."
decided on 8.6.2015 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed as under:-

"However, a term of a contract, in my view will not be final and binding if it is shown that
the consent to the said term was not really voluntary but was given under a sort of
compulsion on account of the person giving consent being left with no other choice or if
the said term amounts to an unfair trade practice. It was submitted by the learned counsel
for the complainants that the term providing for payment of a nominal compensation such
as Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area having become the order of the day in the
contracts designed by big builders, a person seeking to buy an apartment is left with no
option but to sign on the dotted lines since the rejection of such term by him would mean
cancellation of the allotment. He further submitted that a person seeking to acquire a built
up flat instead of purchasing a plot and then raising construction on it, therefore, is not in a

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 6 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

position to protest resist the inclusion of such a term in the Buyer's Agreement, and has to
rely upon the reputation of the builder, particularly if he is a big builder such as Unitech
Ltd. He also submitted that the format of the Buyer's Agreement is never shown to the
purchasers at the time of booking the apartment and if he refuses to sign the Buyer's
Agreement on the format provided by the builder, not only will he lose the booking, even
the booking amount/earnest money paid by him will be forfeited by the builder. I find
merit in the above referred submissions of the learned counsel. A person who, for one
reason or the other, either cannot or does not want to buy a plot and raise construction of
his own, has to necessarily go in for purchase of the built up flat. It is only natural and
logical for him to look for an apartment in a project being developed by a big builder such
as the opposite party in these complaints. Since the contracts of all the big builders contain
a term for payment of a specified sum as compensation in the event of default on the part
of the builder in handing over possession of the flat to the buyer and the flat compensation
offered by all big builders is almost a nominal compensation being less than 25% of the
estimated cost of construction per month, the flat buyer is left with no option but to sign
the Buyer's Agreement in the format provided by the builder. No sensible person will
volunteer to accept compensation constituting about 2-3% of his investment in case of
delay on the part of the contractor, when he is made to pay 18% compound interest if there
is delay on his part in making payment.

It can hardly be disputed that a term of this nature is wholly one sided, unfair and
unreasonable. The builder charges compound interest @ 18% per annum in the event of
the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to him but seeks to pay less than 3%
per annum of the capital investment, in case he does not honour his part of the contract by
defaulting in giving timely possession of the flat to the buyer. Such a term in the Buyer's
Agreement also encourages the builder to divert the funds collected by him for one project,
to another project being undertaken by him. He thus, is able to finance a new project at the
cost of the buyers of the existing project and that too at a very low cost of finance. If the
builder is to take loan from Banks or Financial Institutions, it will have to pay the interest
which the Banks and Financial Institutions charge on term loan or cash credit facilities etc.
The interest being charged by the Banks and Financial Institutions for financing projects of
the builders is many times more than the nominal compensation which the builder would
pay to the flat buyers in the form of flat compensation. In fact, the opposite party has not
even claimed that the entire amount recovered by it from the flat buyers was spent on this
very project. This gives credence to the allegation of the complainants that their money has
been used elsewhere. Such a practice, in my view, constitutes unfair trade practice within
the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair
methods or practice for the purpose of selling the product of the builder. Though, such a
practice does not specifically fall under any of the Clauses of Section 2(r) (1) of the Act
that would be immaterial considering that the unfair trades, methods and practices
enumerated in Section 2(r) (1) of the Act are inclusive and not exhaustive, as would be
evident from the use of word "including" before the words "any of the following
practices".

The same view was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in CC No. 347 of 2014, "Swarn
Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd." decided on 14.8.2015. A reference has also been made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K.A. Nagmani Vs. Housing Commissioner, Karnataka
Housing Board", C.A. No. 6730-6731, decided on 19.9.2012. In that case, the District Forum has
allowed interest @ 12% p.a. and its appeal was dismissed by the State Commission as well as the
Hon'ble National Commission and after relying upon the judgment of "Ghaziabad Development
Authority Vs. Balbir Singh", (2004) 5 SCC 65, the interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 7 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

amount was allowed alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Against the judgment of the Hon'ble
National Commission in "Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd.", C.C. No. 347 of 2014 (supra), Op
preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 35562 of 2015, decided
on 11.12.2015 and passed the order as under:-

"We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We do not see
any cogent reason to entertain the appeal. The judgment does not warrant any interference.

The Civil Appeal is dismissed."

13. However, it was further observed by the Hon'ble National Commission in another judgment
2017(3) CLT 520 (NC) "Ankur Goswami versus Supertech and another" wherein the Hon'ble National
Commission observed that this clause in the allotment letter would be applied to the case where
allottee is seeking possession of the flat and where allottee is not seeking refund of the amount.
However, in the present case, the allottee is seeking the refund, therefore, the penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sq.
ft. will not be applicable.

14. What will be the rate of interest in this case? Further under Rule 17 i.e. Rate of Interest on refund
of advance money upon cancellation of agreement of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation
Rules, 1995, it has been provided as under:-

"17. Rate of Interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement. - The
promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub- section
(1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum
payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."

In the above rule it has been observed to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.

15. No other point was raised.

16. Sequel to the above, we allow the complaint and direct Ops No. 1 & 2 as under:-

(i) to refund a sum of Rs. 49,81,616/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the various dates of
deposit till actual payment, minus Pre-EMI interest of Rs. 5,18,753/- already paid by Ops
Nos. 1 & 2 to Op No. 3 The payment was made by Op No. 3 under Subvention Plan,
therefore, Op No. 3 will have a preferential right to recover the amount due to it as a first
charge and the balance payment, if any, will be paid to the complainant.

(ii) Ops No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lac as compensation on account of
mental and physical harassment by making arrangements of various payments, visiting the
Ops but Ops failed to complete the project.

(iii) pay Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the
complainant will be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the
CP Act against Ops Nos. 1 & 2.

17. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency
of Court cases.

18. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR

GOYAL) MEMBER April 18, 2018.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 8 of 9
Satish Kumar Bagga vs M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 18 April, 2018 26/06/18, 5:09 PM

as

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54485973/ Page 9 of 9