Rajesh K. Arya, Member
1. It is the case of the complainant that in the first instance, vide application dated 22.12.2014, he had booked a residential plot measuring 200 square yards @Rs.18000/- per square yard, with the opposite party, in its project named €˜The Palms€™, Village Mullanpur Garibdas, Dhanauran and Mastgarh, Sub Tehsil Mazri, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. The opposite party issued provisional allocation of plot measuring 200 sq. yards vide letter dated 29.1.22014 to the complainant alongwith payment schedule mentioned in the said letter. It has been stated that the complainant had paid substantial amount of Rs.40 Lakhs starting from 22.12.2014 to 09.12.2017 and only amount left to be paid is some part of 4th and 5th installment, which is to be paid at the time of approval of layout plan and laying of sewerage and storm, issuance of allotment letter specifying plot number and execution of plot buyer agreement, which has not been done so far. It is further averred that vide letters issued from 09.01.2017 to 16.01.2019 (Exhibits C-10 Colly.), the opposite party forcing the complainant to enter into plot buyer€™s agreement before fulfilling the pre-conditions specified in the 4th installment of payment schedule dated 29.12.2014. It is further averred that vide representation dated 21.08.2017, the complainant requested the opposite party to complete all the necessary requirements specified in the payment schedule in order to enable the complainant to make further payments. It is further averred that on visiting the office of the opposite party on 17.08.2017, the complainant was informed that possession would be delivered in the month of March 2018 but in the plot buyer€™s agreement, it was mentioned that possession of the plot would be delivered after 2 years of signing of plot buyer€™s agreement and thereafter 6 months grace period, which is totally contrary to the promises made by the opposite party. It is further averred that there are no roads, sewerage and storm water system and other basic amenities as promised. The complainant sent legal notice dated 22.01.2019 to the opposite party but of no avail.
2. By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party, amount to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to deliver actual physical possession of plot within time bound manner, complete in all respects; to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment; cost of litigation or any other relief which this Commission deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. His claim has been contested by the opposite party on numerous grounds, inter alia, that the complainant has purchased the plot for commercial purpose, as such, he did not fall under the definition of consumer; that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission; that this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. HDFC Bank from whom, the loan was sanctioned subject to mortgage of the plot allotted to the complainant; that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this case, which are required to be adjudicated by way of regular trial/Civil suit and that the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. It was further stated that the complainant was allotted plot No.783 as selected by him on 06.08.2015 vide Annexure C-5 and he was required to execute the Plot Buyer€™s Agreement and submit all other requisite documents, however, he failed to comply with the same till date despite repeated notices issued to him from time to time, otherwise, he would have got the possession of the plot much before filing of the complaint.
4. It has been stated that that exemption from the applicability of provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (PAPR Act) stood granted by the Government on 25.01.2017 which will have retrospective effect; that vide supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, completion period of the project was granted upto 13.06.2018 by the State Government; that the project has been got registered under RERA on 25.09.2017; that in order to facilitate the completion of project, the State Government has further extended period upto 31.12.2022; and that the opposite party has obtained all permissions/approvals in respect of the project in question.
5. However, ironically, it has been claimed in the reply that the opposite party is trying to complete the project, as early as possible i.e. within the extended period, as the development work is going on in full swing and work with regard to provision of basic amenities such as landscaping, electricity lines, internal roads, street lighting, open green spaces, sewerage, and other development works are near completion and that various blocks of flats have already been completed and possession thereof already delivered to the customers. While applying the theory of force majeure circumstances (which means irresistible circumstances beyond ones control such like act of God), it has been alleged that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Government concerned; that there was pending litigation between sand mafia and the government which also resulted into shortage of sand etc.; that delay also occurred because there was delay in granting approvals with regard to sewerage and drainage connections; that due to recession in the real estate market, the government is also trying to help the builders. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the case and written arguments of the parties.
8. First we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite party to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of €˜consumer€™, it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such, the onus shifts to the opposite party to establish that the complainant has purchased the plot in question to indulge in €˜purchase and sale of plots€™ as was held by the Hon€™ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but since it failed to discharge its onus, hence we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Act. In this view of the matter, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.
9. As regards the next objection raised that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. HDFC Bank from whom, the complainant obtained loan to pay part payment, it may be stated here that no doubt, the plot, in question, is hypothecated with the said Bank but the Bank has no role to play so far the possession of the plot, in question, is concerned. It is the opposite party €“ company, which is to deliver possession of the plot, in question. As such, the objection raised being unsustainable is rejected.
10. As regards the next objection that complicated questions are involved in the complaint, which can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court, it may be stated here that complainant hired the services of the opposite party, for purchasing the plot on making payment of sale consideration, referred to above and it is a simple case, where the complainant has sought possession of the plot, in question. Thus, the complaint involves the consumer dispute and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has a remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by him, as he falls within the definition of consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, objection raised by the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. Now we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite party to the effect that this complaint needs to be dismissed on the ground that HDFC Bank from which the complainant has availed housing loan has not been impleaded as a necessary party. It may be stated here that the complainant in this complaint has sought directions to the opposite party for delivery of actual physical possession of the plot, complete in all respect. In our considered opinion, HDFC Bank was not required to be impleaded as party to this complaint, as there is no allegation levelled against it by the complainant and also at the same time, it is not a case of refund. Even otherwise, in refund cases also, this Commission always pass directions to the effect that the first charge of the amount due shall be released to the financial institution/bank concerned, from which any housing loan has been obtained, irrespective of the fact that the said organization has been made a party to the complaint or not. In this case, since it is a possession case, as such, order passed therein will not cause any prejudice to the opposite party and in case there is any dispute between the complainant and HDFC Limited, it (HDFC) is always free to take legal recourse in that regard, under the platform of law available to it. In this view of the matter, objection taken stands rejected.
12. So far as the next objections raised that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to try this complaint and the jurisdiction vests with RERA is concerned, the same does not merit acceptance, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon€™ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and another, decided on 02.11.2020, wherein it was held that the provisions of RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any consumer complaint. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
€œ24. It is, therefore, required to be considered whether the remedy so provided under the RERA Act to an allottee is the only and exclusive modality to raise a grievance and whether the provisions of the RERA Act bar consideration of the grievance of an allottee by other fora.
25. Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, while in terms of Section 89, the provisions of the RERA Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. 26. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an allottee described in category (B) stated in paragraph 22 hereinabove, would stand barred from invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, as regards the allottees who can be called €œconsumers€ within the meaning of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the provisions of the CP Act; and b) whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the RERA Act.
*27. In Malay Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee , it was held by this Court:- €œThe proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court. *(See Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking *Corpn . On the strength of the law so declared, Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint€€
In view of above findings, we can safely say that the provisions of the RERA and PAPR Act will not debar the jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the complaints filed by a consumer alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the builder/developer. Since, this complaint involves the consumer dispute and the same is maintainable before this Commission, as such, objection taken in this regard by the opposite party stands rejected.
13. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, in the first instance, vide application dated 22.12.2014, the complainant had booked a plot measuring 200 square yards @Rs.18000/-, in €˜The Palm Spring€™, for which she had paid Rs.40 Lakhs till 09.12.2017. Receipt of this amount has not been disputed by the opposite party. It is on record that preference request dated 06.08.2015, Exhibit C-5 was accepted by the opposite party vide letter dated 09.01.2017, Exhibit C-10 colly. but the said Plot No.783 was allotted in favour of the complainant vide allotment letter dated 09.12.2017, Exhibit C-7 i.e. after a period of more than two years from the date of preference request. However, he was asked to complete the formalities relating to signing of Plot Buyers Agreement vide letter dated 09.01.2017 i.e. one year before issuance of allotment letter dated 09.12.2017. It is beyond doubt that in order to gain more and more time, the opposite party kept on issuing such letters to the complainant. It is the specific case of the complainant that he was told that the possession would be delivered in the month of March 2018 but in the Plot Buyer€™s Agreement sent by the opposite party in the year 2017, it was mentioned that the possession would be delivered after two years of signing of the said agreement plus six months grace period, which is totally contrary to the promises made by the opposite part. Therefore, he did not execute the Plot Buyers Agreement as it was totally one sided.
14. At this stage, now we will deal with the question, as to whether, the complainant was bound to sign the agreement sent to him by the opposite party, after a long delay, for the first time in 2017, especially, when he found that terms and conditions contained therein are unilaterally and heavily loaded in favour of the company. In its written reply, in order to defeat the claim of the complainant it has been stated by the opposite party that it was in possession of all the approvals/sanctions; development at the project site was about to complete in the project. It may be stated here that vide order dated 30.01.2020, to ascertain the actual position, we sought report from Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), SAS Nagar Mohali and compliance report from Chief Administrator, GMADA was received on 26.02.2020. In view of compliance report dated 25.02.2020 submitted by the Chief Administrator, GMADA, in respect of the same project i.e. €˜The Palm€, we do not agree with the said stand taken by the opposite party. Relevant part of the said report is reproduced hereunder:-
€œ€..Compliance report by Chief Administrator
1. That vide order dated 30.01.2020, this Hon€™ble Commission was pleased to direct the Chief Administrator, GMADA to visit the spot alongwith team of technical officers within seven days from the receipt of copy of the order and submit a report with regard to installation of sewerage and storm water system in plt no. 783 in the project "The Palm", New Chandigarh alongwith photographs and submit a report within 10 days therefrom. Further, direction has been issued to submit the approved site plan as on 22.12.2014 when plot was booked by the complainant and to report as to whether the said plot is complete in all respects and ready for possession and to place on record the photographs of the plot/ site.
2. That this order dated 12.02.2020 was received in GMADA office on 14.02.2020 and accordingly, site visit was scheduled on 19.02.2020 at 9.30 AM.
3. That as per site visit and after checking the site of Plot no.783 on the basis of Lay Out Plan of this project namely "The Palm" of M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in New Chandigarh, which was approved by Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 06.10.2015, it was found that the land where this plot has been planned, is still under agriculture use and no development works of roads, water supply, sewerage and electricity supply have been undertaken by this Promoter in this pocket. Therefore, this plot is not ready for possession. Photographs showing the situation of land, where the plot in question is planned to be developed are appended herewith as Annexure-A and further Layout Plan of this project of M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. at New Chandigarh, which was approved by Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 06.10.2015 is also appended herewith as Annexure-B.
4. That during this inspection, Mr. Surinder Talwar, Manager of Promoter Company M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. as well as the complainant Mr. Devendra Kumar were also present. Mr. Surinder Talwar, Manager of Promoter Company offered that they are willing to offer immediate possession of alternative Plot no. 732 for which all services have been laid, however, the complainant refused to take the alternative plot and instead wanted immediate possession of Plot no. 783, which is not still ready for possession at this stage and the Promoter would be able to give its possession only after all the requisite development works are completed at the site.
Place: S.A.S. Nagar
15. From the contents of the said compliance report aforesaid, it is evident that it has been in a very candid manner, reported by the Chief Administrator GMADA, that the project site at "The Palm" of M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in New Chandigarh, lay out plan whereof was approved for the first time only on 06.10.2015 by the Chief Town Planner, is still under agriculture use and no development works of roads, water supply, sewerage and electricity supply have been undertaken by the company. Thus, the said report leaves no doubt to say that the opposite party had sold the plots in the said project without necessary approvals/sanctions, as the layout plan was got approved only on 06.10.2015, whereas, plot in the said project had been sold as far as back on 22.12.2014 and also it has received substantial amount from the complainant by the said date (06.10.2015). No benefit can be culled out therefrom by the opposite party, especially, in the face of contents of the report of the Chief Administrator, GMADA, extracted above. At the same time, the opposite party failed to convince this Commission, as to why it failed to allot plot no. and execute agreement in respect of the plot booked by the complainant on 22.12.2014 and made him to wait till 09.01.2017. Not only this, as stated above, actual allotment was made after a further delay of one year i.e. on 09.12.2017, just to gain more time as there was no development in the project, where the plot is allotted.
16. It is well settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of infrastructure and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/certificates/approvals have been obtained in respect of the project in question, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. The reply has been filed by the opposite party on 24.10.2020 and in this reply itself, the opposite party is still saying that landscaping, electricity lines, internal roads, street lighting, open green spaces, sewerages and other development works at the project site are near completion. This candid admission of the opposite party itself leaves no scope for it to say that it is ready for delivery of possession of the plot in 2017, 2018 or even till date and as such, it can safely be said that the letters aforesaid reliance whereupon has been placed by the opposite party to say that the complainant was asked number of times to execute the Plot Buyers Agreement make remaining payment were sent just with a view to gain more and more time. Not only this, firstly, sending Plot Buyers Agreement in the year 2017 and secondly, incorporation clause therein qua handing over of possession in 2 years from the date of its singing is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and with an intent to gain more time to cause financial loss to the complainant. It may be stated here that recently, the Hon€™ble Supreme Court of India in the case of IREO GRACE REALTECH LTD. Versus ABHISHEK KHANNA & ORS, Civil Appeal No.5785 of 2019 decided on 11.01.2021 has held that incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer€™s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon€™ble Supreme Court held in Para 19.7 as under:-
€œ19.7 We are of the view that the incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer€˜s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. Even under the 1986 Act, the powers of the consumer fora were in no manner constrained to declare a contractual term as unfair or one-sided as an incident of the power to discontinue unfair or restrictive trade practices. An €œunfair contract€ has been defined under the 2019 Act, and powers have been conferred on the State Consumer Fora and the National Commission to declare contractual terms which are unfair, as null and void. This is a statutory recognition of a power which was implicit under the 1986 Act.
In view of the above, we hold that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer€˜s Agreement.€
17. Thus, in our considered opinion, the complainant is not bound to sign such an agreement, term and conditions whereof, are totally one-sided and unreasonable.
18. Further, the opposite party also cannot wriggle out of its liability, by saying that delay took place on account of the reason that the complainant defaulted in making remaining payment, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon€™ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Raj Mehta, Appeal (Civil) 5882 of 2002, decided on 24.09.2004, wherein it was held that if the builder is at fault in not delivering possession of the units/plots by the stipulated date or within a reasonable period where no agreement is executed, it cannot expect the allottee(s) to go on paying installments to it. Similar view had also been taken by the Hon€™ble National Commission, in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments was rightly stopped by the purchaser. Thus, in such a case, if the complainant did not make remaining payment or it withheld some part of payment, when he came to know that there was no development at the project site and also there was gross violation on the part of the opposite party of the provisions of Section 6 of PAPR Act, in not getting the agreement executed within a reasonable period of receiving amount equal to 25% of the total sale consideration, she was right in doing so, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon€™ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra).
19. To wriggle out of the allegation leveled by the complainant, the opposite party, in its written arguments filed, has stated that delay in offering possession of the plot in dispute occurred on account of force majeure circumstances having been faced by the company i.e. due to COVID-19, and possession of the plot, in question, i.e. lot No.783 shall be completed by the opposite party by March 2021. In our view, the argument raised is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is an afterthought. The said pandemic took place in India in March 2020, when lockdown was clamped. The Lockdown was lifted in May, 2020 in phased manner. Furthermore, the plea of non-development now raised in the garb of Covid-19 pandemic cannot be accepted in view of report of Chief Administrator, GAMADA as discussed above. However, in the present case, the opposite party failed to convince this Commission, that it actually encountered force majeure circumstances (which means irresistible circumstances beyond ones control such like act of God etc.) as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the plot occurred. Plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, therefore stands rejected.
20. First coming to delay in approvals on the part of the Govt. Departments, regarding connection of sewerage and drainage, it may be stated here that not even a single letter has been placed on record by the opposite party showing that it ever reported the Govt. Authorities concerned that there is a delay on their part in granting such sanctions/approvals in respect of the project in question or that any such letter, by which it has given notice to the said Authorities that in case the needful is not done in a prescribed time, the Company shall move to the appropriate platform of law, in the matter.
21. It also came out from the report of Chief Administrator, GAMADA, that during inspection, Mr. Surinder Talwar, Manager of Promoter Company offered immediate possession of alternative Plot no. 732 for which all services have been laid, which offer was refused by the complainant and instead wanted immediate possession of Plot no. 783, which is not still ready for possession at this stage and the Promoter would be able to give its possession only after all the requisite development works are completed at the site.
22. Thus, it is proved on record that possession of the plot, in question, allotted to the complainant, is still not ready and complete.
23. Now the question, which arises for consideration of this Commission is as to what would be the reasonable period for handing over of actual physical possession of the plot, in question and that as to for which period, the complainant is entitled for compensation for delay in delivering possession of the plot in question, especially, when no agreement has been executed between the parties. It may be stated here that it is settled law that in the cases, where no agreement has been executed, a reasonable period has to be taken into consideration for delivering possession of the plot/unit to the allottee. What should be the reasonable period in such a case, fell for determination before the Hon€™ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as M/s. Fortune Infrastructure Appellant(s) (Now Known as M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) & anr. Versus Trevor Dlima & Ors. Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No(S). 3533-3534 of 2017, decided on 12.03.2018, wherein it was held that when there is no delivery period stipulated, a time period of 3 years would be reasonable for completion of the contract. Similar view had been taken by the Hon€™ble National Commission in M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 2 Ors. Vs. Jotinder Singh, First Appeal No. 870 of 2015 decided on 10 Nov 2016. Since in the present case also, Plot Buyers Agreement has not been executed, as such a reasonable period of three years from the date of booking if taken into consideration, for completing the development of the project and handing over possession of the plot to the complainant, will meet the ends of justice. In the present case, since booking of the plot was made on 22.12.2014, as such, the complainant is held entitled for compensation for the period of delay starting from 22.12.2017 till the handing over of actual physical possession to him, complete in all respects.
24. It may be stated here that recently in Civil Appeal No.6239 of 2019 (Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (now Known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.) decided on 24.08.2020, the Hon€™ble Supreme Court has held that in the cases, where there is delay in delivery of possession, the buyer is entitled to compensatio
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire deposited amount for the period of delay over and above the penalty amount already mentioned in the agreement i.e. Rs.5/- or Rs.10/- per square feet in the cases of flat and Rs.30/- per square yards in the cases of plot. In this manner, if we calculate the average of the compensation granted in the manner it comes to about ranging between 8.5 to 9% p.a. Thus, in the present case, since there is no agreement executed between the parties, as such, to maintain parity by following the principle of law laid down by the Hon€™ble Supreme Court in the above said case, we are of the considered opinion that, if we grant compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount for the period of delay referred to above i.e. three years from the date of booking till actual possession is delivered to the complainant, that will meet the ends of justice. 25. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs and the opposite party is directed as under:- 1. To hand over actual physical possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining completion certificate, on receipt of amount legally due, as per rate quoted in documents, Exhibits C-1 & C-2 i.e. @ Rs.18,000/- per square yard plus other charges mentioned therein, if applicable to him. 1. To execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within a period of two months, from the date of handing over possession thereof. However, the complainant is liable to make payment of stamp duty and registration charges to the Registering Authority. 1. To pay compensation, by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount to the complainant from 22.12.2017 (three years from the date of booking of plot) till 31.01.2021 within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the entire amount accumulated for the said period shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default, till payment is made. 1. To pay compensation by way of interest @9% p.a., on the entire deposited amount to the complainant w.e.f. 01.02.2021 onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall carry penal interest @12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made. 1. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization. 26. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 27. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.