STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL No.1258 of 2012
you can download from
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do?method=getPdf&cid=12%2F0%2FFA%2F12%2F1258&dtOfHearing=2015-09-15
Date of Institution: 25.09.2012
Date of Decision : 15.09.2015
Lokesh Kumar son of Shri Rishipal, resident of House No.1699, Type-2, D.M.W. Colony, Patiala 147003 (Punjab)
…..Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Limited, Som Datt's Landmark in Sector 116, Sante Majra, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali (Punjab) through its authorized representative.
Second Address :
SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Limited, (Formerly Som Datt Builders Pvt. Limited), 56-58, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065
…..Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:
For the appellant
|
:
|
Sh. Lokesh Kumar, in person
|
For the respondent
|
:
|
Sh. Dharam Paul Gupta, Advocate
|
First Appeal No.1319 of 2012
Date of Institution : 04.10.2012
Date of decision :
|
.09.2015
|
SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd.) having its office at 56-58, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi- 110065 through its Managing Director
...Appellant/Opposite Party
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
Versus
Lokesh Kumar son of Shri Rishipal, resident of House No.1699, Type-2, D.M.W. Colony, Patiala 147003 (Punjab)
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:
For the appellant
|
:
|
Sh. Dharam Paul Gupta, Advocate
|
For the respondent
|
:
|
Sh. Lokesh Kumar, in person
|
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two first appeals;
namely, F.A.No.1258 of 2012 (Lokesh Kumar Vs. SDB Infrastructure
Pvt. Limited) and F.A. No. 1319 of 2012 (SDB Infrastructure Pvt.
Limited Vs. Lokesh Kumar); which are directed against the same impugned order dated 04.09.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Lokesh Kumar against the opposite party (in short 'OP') was allowed and it was directed to pay to him a compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In case, the compensation was not paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the said amount was ordered to carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
date of institution of the complaint i.e. 2.5.2012 till the date of actual payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant booked a 2BHK, flat No.403, Tower 6, 4th Floor, having super area of 1249 sq. ft. with the OP in its project known as 'SOM DATT's LANDMARK', Sector 116, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali, by issuing cheque dated 14.6.2011 for 10% of its basic price. At that time, OP committed that the possession would be delivered in mid August, 2011 as the construction work was almost complete and only the wooden and finishing work was pending. He regularly visited the flat to point out defects in the construction, but nobody was available at site to take care of the work being done in the flat. His oral complaints being ineffective, he sent email dated 28.7.2011 alongwith photographs and list of complaints to OP, but still no action was taken. Thereafter, a number of emails were sent by him but to no effect. It was pleaded that OP sent formal offer of possession on 2.8.2011, in which it was mentioned that flat was ready for possession and also that if he did not clear the remaining payment within 15 days, penalty @ 18% would be charged. The flat was, infact, not ready for possession at that time. There was nobody at the site of the work and Delhi office of opposite party did not reply his emails. Only false promises were made by various persons about redressing his problems on phone. One such person; namely, Sanjay, told him at the site that he should first clear all the payments, and only then, the work in his flat would be continued. Another person; namely, Rohit Chopra, also told him to clear his dues. Accordingly, he asked his bank to release the loan amount but the bank told him that 5% of the loan
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
amount would be kept till registration of the sale deed is done, whereas, Mr. Sanjay told him that the sale deed would be executed in his name only on receipt of all the payments. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed in his favour on 9.9.2011. On the representation of the OP that possession would be delivered in August, 2011, he gave one month's notice to his landlord for vacation of the house, where he was living on rent. He sent email to OP for handing over the possession. He received a call from Mr. R.S.Sharma of Delhi office of the OP, telling him to send him the list of pending issues and assured him of positive action. On 28.9.2011 at 6.00 PM, when he went to the flat for taking over its possession, Mr. Sanjay did not allow him to enter it on the ground that he should first withdraw the list of problems which he had sent through emails. On 29.9.2011, he partially signed the list and only then he was allowed to enter the flat. However, on entering it, he found that its toilet was in a very shabby condition. On his asking, official of the OP tried to clean it but failed; he rather damaged it. Whenever, he asked the officials of the OP to expedite the work of his flat, they used to make false promises. After occupying the flat on 29.9.2011, he found that the tiles were loosely fixed; bedroom aluminium doors were not climate proof and air, dust and rain water entered through the same. There was seepage in the flat. His requests to various officials of the OP to make amends did not yield any result. He also talked to Mr. Sharma at Delhi, who told him that he would visit the site on 20.4.2012 and would sort out the problems but, on his arrival, he misbehaved with him. Seepage in the secondary bed room, which was existing for the last 8-9 months, had now percolated to the master bedroom. Therefore,
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
he had to keep his bedding in the dining-living hall. Paint was not smooth and was peeling of the walls from time to time. Chinese fittings were used in the bathroom and kitchen instead of promised fittings of European W.C.C.P. Floor tiles in the rooms and bathroom were loosely fixed and the recommended adhesive was not used. Window and balcony doors were loosely assembled and were fixed with the glass which was heavier than the frame. The main entrance door was cracked and was making noise. The work in the modular kitchen was of poor quality and the colour of its board had started disappearing. The slab was not given firm support in the kitchen and its wood work was infested with termite. Some wooden doors were not even properly painted. There was no stoppers in the cup boards and the provision to lock those was of poor quality. Paint in the cup boards was of poor quality and same stuck to the clothes. Tiles on the walls were not cut to proper size. Electrical switch boards were loosely fixed and were unsafe. Both toilet seats were having scratches. The common bathroom was giving bad smell and the malady had not been cured despite persistent requests. Tiles of the walls of both the bathrooms were under sized and not properly cut. Walls in the secondary bed room were not properly levelled. POP work was very poor. He further sought refund of the maintenance amount of Rs.12,400/- paid by him to the OP for two quarters, on the ground that the promised facilities and security was not provided in the complex. The officials of the OP expressed utter helplessness as there were only two security guards, who were needed for the security of the site itself. It was further alleged that the quality of the services being rendered by the OP was poor. It was further pleaded
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
that the second hand generators were provided for power backup despite receiving Rs.50,000/- for the same. Furthermore, residents were being charged for the backup supply @ Rs.12.60 per unit. No parking was provided inspite of having received Rs.50,000/-. He was made to use open parking abutting the road. It was further pleaded that the construction of the flat was complete when he purchased it. Therefore, charging of the service tax to the tune of Rs.89,903/- was illegal. The maintenance money was being spent for solving the problems which occurred during the construction. Safety norms, as given in the National Building Code (NBC), 2005, were not followed. He pointed out that as against the height of 90 cm, a height of 75 cm only had been provided in respect of handrail in the staircase. Similarly, as against the width of 10 cm, width of 55 cm was provided qua gaps in balusters and as against the height of 3' 11", OP provided the height of 3' qua balcony walls/guard rails. It was prayed that in case the OP did not do the aforesaid works and remove the defects, it should be directed to pay the cost of material and labour required for the same. He also prayed that if OP failed to solve the problem of seepage, it should be imposed a penalty @ 18% per month. It be directed to obtain the possession certificate from the concerned authority, to furnish accounts of the receipt and expenditure for the maintenance charges and to indicate the particular place of parking for his vehicle. Directions were also sought to the OP to pay him Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, torture and to refund him the following amounts:
(i) maintenance charges of Rs.12,400;
(ii) Rs. 1000/- for the electricity charges paid by him;
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
(iii) Open parking charges of Rs.50,000/- and
(iv) service tax amount of Rs.89,903/- with interest.
3. Upon notice, OP contested the complaint and filed written reply pleading therein that the complaint has been filed to injure its goodwill and reputation. The complainant submitted application for booking of the flat after having a thorough look at the tile work, water supply and sanitary work, including W.C., wash basin, CP fittings, aluminum work, cupboard, electricity work, paint and polish work etc. and quality of construction of the flat. Only thereafter, he agreed to the applicable price of the flat and the terms and conditions. He even compared the work done in his flat with the specifications sheet handed over to him with the application form. He was then issued allotment letter dated 21.6.2011. At that time the construction of the flat was almost complete. Thereafter, he used to visit and inspect the flat for three months, during which, minor issues raised by him regarding finishing of the flat were taken care of by it to his entire satisfaction before handing over the flat to him. It was pleaded that the re-painting work on the walls could not be carried out at that time as the walls were wet from inside due to leakage of water which was detected during testing of sanitary and water supply system. It was admitted that complainant sent list of issues through email dated 24.9.2011 but pleaded that same were immediately addressed. He even put his signatures on the print of the email on 28.9.2011 before moving into the flat, as a proof of his acknowledgement of redressing of the issues. When, few days later the site staff went to redress the pending issues, he did not allow them to enter the flat. European Water Closet and Chrome Plated Fittings were provided as per the specifications. The floor tiles were also fixed as per
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
the specifications and none of those was damaged or cracked. Minor cracks in the doors were due to shrinkage of wood, which are bound to occur with the passage of time. The modular kitchen was installed by a professional and minor issues regarding movement of racks were rectified as per the requirement of the complainant. Wooden doors were polished and were not painted. Polish was perfect at the time of handing over the flat. Switch boards were correctly fixed at the proper places and the gap between the tiles and the switch boards, if any, was filled to the satisfaction of the complainant. The W.C. seats were checked by him before taking over the possession of the flat. He did not raise any issue at that time. The chinaware items get scratches only if they are not handled and maintained properly. The walls, ceiling and POP work was done as per specifications. As 78 flats were completed in the first phase, the provision of 380 KVA DG set was not found economically viable at that stage. Therefore, the power was being supplied to these flats from 2 DG sets of 125 KVA and 75 KVA. On completion of the project, new DG set would be provided as per the requirement. The backup power rate of Rs.12.60 per unit has been mentioned under clause 8 of the agreement, which was duly signed by him. It was further pleaded that the car parking space was not sold to him. However, he has been given right to exclusive use of open car parking. Service tax has been paid by the flat owners as per the Govt. notification. Maintenance charges are for the purpose of running and maintenance of different services as per clause 1 of the maintenance agreement. No money is being spent for construction or for removing construction defects out of the maintenance charges. It has employed
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
well educated and professional staff for providing various services in the project. It denied if any of their official misbehaved with the complainant. Denying any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice by it, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Parties led their evidence, by way of affidavits and documents, before the District Forum, which after going through the same, allowed the complaint, in aforesaid terms.
5. Aggrieved by this order, OP has filed the appeal (First Appeal No.1319 of 2012) on the grounds that the dispute between the parties is to be settled in terms of the agreement and the allotment letter dated 20.6.2011 and 21.6.2011 respectively, in which, the complainant had agreed for the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and excluded the jurisdiction of any other forum for deciding the disputes between them. As such, the order the District Forum is bad in law, being without jurisdiction. It was further submitted that flat, in question, was booked/purchased at the time when the construction of the said flat was near completion and the complainant inspected the flat before taking over its possession. He agreed to the terms and conditions, including charges for extra services. Flats specification were provided to him and only then he paid the agreed consideration. The Ld. District Forum discarded the fact that the issues, raised through the email dated 24.9.2011, were duly redressed by it as a goodwill gesture and the complainant even acknowledged and confirmed the same by signing the same. This document on the face of it proves its bonafide and malafide on the part of the complainant. The possession of the flat was
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
taken over on 2.9.2011 confirming the completion of the said flat and amenities therein in all respects to his satisfaction and, as such, he cannot file any complaint thereafter. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that flat, in question, was in his custody and that his list of the issues were ever changing. The delay in redressing his minor issues was nothing but normal wear and tear due to passage of time. Some damage do occur during shifting of personal luggage and same cannot be attributed to the builder. The construction of the site was designed and supervised by highly qualified and experienced professionals of international stature; who had certified the project basing upon the quality and the credibility of the project. The District Forum has wrongly observed that the complainant has done extensive work to effect repairs and to remove the defects for a period of one month and opined that there were inherent defects in the work. The act of OP being generous and showing goodwill gesture by providing over and above services initially to maintain relationship and harmony and later on to comply with the directions of the District Forum has bounced back upon it with the imposition of heavy penalty. It was further submitted that issues involved in the complaint were of technical nature, which required opinion of an expert in the related field to substantiate the quality, defects and workmanship, but, no such expert has been examined by the complainant to support his allegations. There is no evidence on record with regard to the quantum of loss or harassment caused to the complainant. The compensation awarded by District forum is illegal and against the law laid down by various courts.
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
6. Being not fully satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed First Appeal No. 1258 of 2012 for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him on the grounds that the District Forum had rightly found deficiency in service on the part of the OP but it did not give any observation with regard to unfair trade practice adopted by it. He was given possession of incomplete and roughly constructed flat, due to which he suffered unwanted litigation and unnecessary harassment. While deciding the complaint, learned District Forum awarded compensation for mental harassment caused by the OP to him, but has not considered the repair and the maintenance expenditure amounting to Rs.7,13,000/- as opined by expert. OP has not repaired the defects inspite of the specific directions by the District Forum. The expenditure to be incurred on setting right the defects has further increased due to the increasing of the construction and labour costs. The District Forum has not allowed refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- charged on account of car parking. There was a specific deficiency in service regarding allotment of car parking slot on the road, which was an unfair trade practice adopted by it. No interest on the compensation has been awarded as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 314 (SC). The District Forum has further failed to appreciate that as per their promise and agreement, OP was to provide apartment with a view to provide 'luxurious residential accommodation' as mentioned in the brochure at affordable rates. It also promised that the flats would be of modern design and
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
mapped by superior Architect. However, all the promises were fake and it adopted unfair trade practice to fleece the customers. OP failed to provide 24 hours of high backup security with CCTV cameras, landscaping of lawns, jogging track and children park, club and swimming pool, separate guests parking as promised in the brochure. If the construction of the flat was far below the standard shown in the sample flat. Therefore, heavy costs is to be imposed on the OP and the compensation is to be enhanced.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the record of the District Forum.
8. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant booked a 2BHK flat No.403, Tower No. 6 at 4th Floor, having super area of 1249 sq. ft. in the project of the OPs called 'SOM DATT's LANDMARK', Sector 116, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali, the possession of which, was to be given in August, 2011. It is further admitted that at the time of booking, construction work was almost complete and only wooden and finishing work was pending. The specific grievance of the complainant is that after booking, he used to visit the flat regularly to point out the defects in the construction, but nobody took any interest to rectify the same. Oral complaints were made by him to various officials of the OPs and email dated 28.7.2011, alongwith photographs of the defects, was sent to the OP. It was followed by number of emails but to no effect. It is further the case of the complainant that at the time of handing over of the possession of the flat on 2.8.2011, he was forced to sign email in token of the defects having been removed. The sale deed was executed on 9.9.2011. He was allowed to enter the flat on 29.9.2011,
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
only when he partially signed the list. However, on entering it, he found that a number of defects were still existing. Condition of the toilet was shabby as its tiles were loosely fixed; bedroom aluminium doors were not climate and air proof, due to which dust and rain entered through the same. There was seepage in the flat. He contacted the various official of the OP; namely Mr. Sharma at Delhi, who visited the site on 20.4.2012 but he, instead of rectifying the defects, misbehaved with him. The other grievance of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.12,400/- was received as maintenance costs for two quarters on the ground that the promised facilities and security was to be provided, but, same were actually not given. It was further alleged by the complainant that the quality of the services rendered by OP was poor. The seepage in the secondary bed room, that was existing for the last 8-9 months, had percolated through the master bedroom. Paint on the walls was not smooth and was peeling of the walls from time to time. Chinese fittings were provided instead of European W.C.C.P. fittings. Floor tiles in the rooms and bathroom were loosely fixed and recommended adhesive was not used. Window and balcony doors were loosely assembled and glass was heavier than the frame. The main entrance door was found cracked and made noise at the time of entering into the flat. The work in the modular kitchen was of poor quality and the colour of its board had started disappearing. The kitchen slab was not firmly supported and its wood work was infested with termites. Even the locking arrangement of the cup boards were not proper. The paint done in the cup boards was of poor quality and stuck to the clothes. The tiles on the walls were not cut to in proper size. Switch boards were loosely fixed and unsafe. Both
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
the toilet seats contained scratches. Tiles on the walls of both the bathrooms were short in size and not properly cut. Gap from the power plug for AC was removed, thus endangering the safety of the kids and the elders. POP work was very poor. It was further alleged that inspite of having received Rs.50,000/- for power backup, second hand generators were provided and an exorbitant rate of Rs.12.60 per unit were being charged. Similarly, inspite of receipt of Rs.50,000/- for parking, OPs did not provide a separate space for the same and he was made to use open parking abutting the road. Furthermore, service tax to the tune of Rs.89,903/- were charged from him inspite of the fact that the construction of the flat was complete when he purchased it. The maintenance money obtained from residents was being spent for solving the problems occurred during the construction. It was further contended that safety norms given in the National Building Code (NBC), 2005 were not followed because the height of handrail of the staircase and gap in balusters as well as the height of the guard rails was less than specified. The categoric stand of the OP is that the defects pointed out by the complainant were duly attended to and that he even signed the list of the defects at the time of taking of the possession in token of having removed all the defects. It is further contended that once the complainant has taken over the possession of the flat after satisfying himself that the defects so pointed out were removed, he was estopped from raising the issue again and again.
9. In order to substantiate the allegations made by him, the complainant has proved on record the various photographs of the flat (Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-98); perusal thereof clearly reveals that the defects
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
pointed out by him were actually existing. The OP has not denied that the photographs proved by the complainant were not of the flat allotted to him. It has only tried to defend by stating that these defects were of minor nature and occurred due to normal wear and tear. It is further contended that the construction of the flat was not as per the specifications mentioned in the brochure. It is not disputed that the complainant had been pointing out the defects in his flat before and after taking over the possession of the flat. He has made out a clear cut case that not only the defects pointed out by him continued to persist but the condition of the flat deteriorated further. The OPs in their written reply pleaded that the complainant pin pointed few things with respect to the flat before getting the possession which were taken care of before handing over the vacant possession of the flat. It was further pleaded that all the issues were after thought just to make a false claim. It has been clearly admitted by the OP that the paint of the walls got spoiled due to seepage while the sanitary and water supply systems were tested. It has been further admitted by it that the re-painting of the work was to be done at a later stage as walls were still wet. Thus, it is proved that the seepage entered into the flat due to the poor quality of the sanitary and water supply system. It has been further admitted that re-painting job was done as per the directions of the District Forum on 1.6.2012 and that they put in their best efforts to re-paint all the walls and to remove all kinds of defects as pointed out by the complainant. It is thus proved that a number of defects as alleged by the complainant were found existing and efforts were also made to rectify those defects. Even after the repair work was done by OP, as per the directions of the
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
District Forum, a number of defects as depicted in the photographs were still persisting. Apparently, walls and ceiling of the rooms became wet on account of seepage, due to which, paint came out from the walls. Gap in the windows and doors is also clearly visible in the photographs. Similarly, the quality of the wood work as well as workmanship of the tiles, bathroom and floor tiles can also be seen. Gap in the wall and the doors, the door and its frame further confirm that the workmanship and the quality of the material used was inferior. During arguments, the learned counsel for the OPs tried to justify that such gaps were bound to occur with the passage of time due to shrinkage of the wood. This argument only further confirms that the quality of the wood used was inferior.
10. The complainant, who was present in person, argued that he was lured into buying the flat after he was shown the sample flat built by the OP at site. The actual pictures of the sample flat are shown in the brochure proved by complainant as Ex.C-109. If the quality and finishing of the work as reflected in the sample flat is compared with the actual photographs of the flat given to the complainant are compared, a lot of deficiencies can easily be noticed. When confronted with the proposition that the sample flat be exchanged with the flat allotted to the complainant, OP clarified that the sample flat was a temporary construction and was not fit for permanent use. Apparently, the OP showed a high quality sample flat to lure the customer but then failed to live up to the standards and the specifications as mentioned in the brochure, in which, it has been stipulated that 'flats have modern design
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
and are mapped by superior Architect' and that these flats were 'luxury
apartments'.
11. The contention of the OP is that once the allottee had taken over the possession of the flat, cannot point out defects is without any merit. A residential flat, completed as per the approved specification, is to withstand the normal wear and tear and the defects as pointed out by the complainant, are not expected to develop, within a short span of time. It is amply clear that the quality of work and the craftsmanship of the material used was far below the standards mentioned in the specifications and shown in the sample flat.
12. For the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.1319 of 2012, filed by the OP, is dismissed.
13. The complainant, in his First Appeal No.1258 of 2012, has prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the District Forum. He has contended that he has not been allowed the refund of Rs.50,000/- charged on account of car parking. On scrutiny of allotment letter dated 21.06.2011 (Ex.C-101), it is observed that as per its items 5, covered car parking facility in the stilt was available on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, complainant only deposited Rs.50,000/-; against which only surface car parking was available and opposite party has already allocated one such slot to the complainant. Thus, no deficiency was found on that count.
14. The complainant further contended that while allowing the complaint, District Forum did not consider his demand of repair and maintenance expenditure as per estimate (Annexure A-2) dated
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
15.09.2012 prepared by Universal Planners. We do not find merit in this contention, as no assessment was made by any expert with regards to the works mentioned in Annexure A-2 so as to ascertain if those were left unattended after the exercise undertaken by OP, as per direction of District Forum. Moreover, there is no proof to the effect if any such expenditure, as mentioned in this self serving estimate, was actually made by the complainant. We have considered the various aspects of the issues raised by complainant and the nature of the defects pointed out by him and we are of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Ld. District Forum, for a flat having total cost of Rs.30.00 Lacs, is sufficient for harassment caused to him as well as for rectification of the defects which remained un-attended after the exercise was undertaken by OP, as per directions of the District Forum, moreso, when some of the listed defects were set right by OP during pendency of complaint before District Forum. Accordingly, this appeal of the complainant is also dismissed.
15. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by OP at the time of filing of the appeal (F.A. No. 1319 of 2012) before this Commission. Another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by it vide receipt No. 662122 dated 05.11.2012 as per directions of this Commission. Both these amounts, alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
16. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 07.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
17. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
18. Copy of this order be placed in the file of F.A. No.1319 of 2012.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
MEMBER
(VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)
MEMBER
September 15, 2015
KK
F.A. No. 1258 of 2012
