w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shouvik Bhattacharya v/s A2 Services & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- I SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2003PTC118851

Company & Directors' Information:- S T SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1989PLC047210

Company & Directors' Information:- M G F SERVICES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910DL1987PLC029599

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- S J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1988PTC034427

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP E - SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MN2013PTC008361

Company & Directors' Information:- E M SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090MH2001PTC131924

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L51226WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L93000WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1994PTC078529

Company & Directors' Information:- A K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899MH1986PTC268851

Company & Directors' Information:- B V SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC050946

Company & Directors' Information:- I S A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140JH1995PTC006387

Company & Directors' Information:- E I C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022426

Company & Directors' Information:- H S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2014PTC074321

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2010PTC212026

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC168484

Company & Directors' Information:- O P T SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL1996PTC083397

Company & Directors' Information:- P P SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1991PTC051423

Company & Directors' Information:- A P T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29219TG1999PTC031903

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1993PTC003956

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC230905

Company & Directors' Information:- A N Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071457

Company & Directors' Information:- N B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056484

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00894KA1985PTC006606

Company & Directors' Information:- M. V. S SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2013PTC252172

Company & Directors' Information:- S D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1998PTC005293

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND B SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC145775

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA1996PTC019645

Company & Directors' Information:- A2 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2011PTC159420

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51900MH1989PTC054373

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193917

Company & Directors' Information:- M E R I T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1999PTC118445

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2009PTC293633

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC139742

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040DL1996PTC075731

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1946PLC000976

Company & Directors' Information:- U M S SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ1982PLC001208

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH2001PTC132923

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC078465

Company & Directors' Information:- G I SERVICES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PLC184088

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992KL1988PLC005094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50200DL2004PTC124035

Company & Directors' Information:- B H SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2012FTC227035

Company & Directors' Information:- A R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2001PTC109578

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PTC092554

Company & Directors' Information:- L B D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00359BR1991PTC004694

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 Z E SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2006PTC039105

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013531

Company & Directors' Information:- B I N A R Y SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC103072

Company & Directors' Information:- M C SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013532

Company & Directors' Information:- D & D SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC093967

Company & Directors' Information:- S C L SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63012TN2001PTC046650

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1998PTC093545

Company & Directors' Information:- G P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037683

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85320WB2003PTC095712

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. V. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999HR2014PTC052304

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U72501DL1998PTC096640

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044009

Company & Directors' Information:- S S D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910RJ1996PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2010PTC206211

Company & Directors' Information:- D S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923MH2012PTC226482

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH1981PTC024997

Company & Directors' Information:- F F C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC153348

Company & Directors' Information:- R. B. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC302692

Company & Directors' Information:- Q C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2013PTC148110

Company & Directors' Information:- S N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900JK2014PTC004110

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2013PTC034757

Company & Directors' Information:- R M E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC166470

Company & Directors' Information:- A Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC239759

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC233958

Company & Directors' Information:- S & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC287145

Company & Directors' Information:- A R J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2015PTC286948

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC242159

Company & Directors' Information:- G W SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U79140DL2001PTC111194

Company & Directors' Information:- B 2 B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140HR2013PTC049213

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2007PTC041783

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. T. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900GJ2009PTC056248

Company & Directors' Information:- B 9 N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KL2012PTC032087

Company & Directors' Information:- V J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29242GJ2013PTC074510

Company & Directors' Information:- N I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202KL2000PTC014355

Company & Directors' Information:- 7-A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2019PTC359011

Company & Directors' Information:- F I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC113001

Company & Directors' Information:- D N BHATTACHARYA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1946PTC014150

Company & Directors' Information:- C R D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72300AS1988PTC003097

Company & Directors' Information:- B I M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1974PTC002694

Company & Directors' Information:- T Q M SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1999PTC101341

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1977PTC019880

Company & Directors' Information:- M J B E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL2006PTC150832

    Complaint Case No. 295 of 2017

    Decided On, 11 February 2020

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Barun Prasad, Subrata Mondal, Sovanlal Bera, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: Ved Sharma, Kr. Basu, Sritama Mondal, Advocates.



Judgment Text


The instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of a couple/intending purchaser against a partnership construction firm and its partners (Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3) and the landowner (Opposite Party No. 4) on the allegation of deficiency of services, primarily on the part of developer in a dispute of housing construction.

2. Succinctly put, complainants case is that on 11.5.2011 they entered into an agreement for sale with the OPs to purchase of a self-contained flat measuring about 1640 sq. ft. super built up area being flat No. 2 on the 2 floor and one open car parking space measuring about 135 sq. ft. on the ground floor underneath the proposed building together with undivided proportionate share of land with users rights of all common areas of the said building lying and situated at premises No. 457, Madurdaha, P.S.- Tiljala, Kolkata- 700107, Dist- South 24 Parganas within the local limits of ward No. 108 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation at a total consideration of Rs. 53,75,000. The complainants have stated that they have already paid Rs. 50,37,500 as part consideration amount and also Rs. 36,800 as costs of tiles to the developer and they are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,37,500 at the time of delivery of possession of the flat or at the time of execution of deed of conveyance. The complainants have stated that in order to meet the expenses to purchase the flat they obtained loan from Bank amounting to Rs. 32,25,000 which has been directly disbursed in favour of the developer. The complainants have stated that as per terms of the agreement the developer was under obligation to handover the subject flat in complete condition within December 2011 and it was agreed that if they failed to deliver the possession within committed date, they will pay damages of @ Rs. 5,000 per month till the date of delivery of possession of the flat. The complainants have alleged that after expiry of the stipulated period, they have requested the OPs to handover the flat but the OPs on the ground of poor financial condition undertook to complete construction positively by 30.4.2015 but unfortunately they failed to complete the construction and deliver the possession. In this regard, all the requests and persuasions including legal notice dated 8.12.2016 was not heeded to. Hence, the complainants have lodged the complaint with prayer for following reliefs, viz.: (a) to direct the OPs to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the flat in question in a habitable condition within the period of one month and to execute the deed of conveyance immediately thereafter; (b) to provide completion certificate; (c) to pay damages of Rs. 5,000 per month from January, 2012 till delivery of possession; (d) to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 due to harassment and mental agony; (c) to award litigation costs of Rs. 50,000, etc.

3. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the partnership construction firm and its partners by fling a written version have stated that due to shortage of fund they have failed to handover the possession of the flat to the complainants within the stipulated period. It has further been stated that they will pay the delay charges @ Rs. 5,000 per month and seeks some more time to complete the construction works pertaining to the said building.

4. The Opposite Party No. 4/landowner by filing a separate written version has stated that the OP Nos. 1 to 3/developer in lieu of the land given by them has paid Rs. 53,00,000 in favour of them and as such there is no embargo upon OP Nos. 1 to 3 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants on the basis of registered Power of Attorney so granted by them provided contractual consideration amount is paid to the developer.

5. The parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Though the parties represented through their learned Advocates yet they did not file any brief notes of argument in accordance with Regulation 13(2) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

6. The pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record make it quite clear that OP No. 3 is the owner of a plot of land measuring about 3 cottahs and 42.5 sq. ft. more or less lying and situated at premises No. 457, Madurdaha, P.S.-Tiljala, Kolkata-700107, Dist-South 24 Parganas within the local limits of ward No. 108 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. In order to construct a G+3 storied building over the said land, the OP No. 4 (landowner) has obtained sanctioned building plan from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 29.9.2010. Subsequently, on 24.11.2010 the OP No. 4 had entered into a development agreement with the OP No. 1 represented by OP Nos. 2 and 3 for raising a G+3 storied building. On the self-same date, OP No. 4 has also executed one Power of Attorney authorising OP No. 1 to enter into agreement for sale with the intending buyers from the developer’s allocation.

7. The evidence on record goes to show that on 11.5.2011 the OP No. 1 represented by OP Nos. 2 and 3 had entered into registered agreement for sale with the complainants to sell one self-contained flat measuring about 1,640 sq. ft. super built up area being flat No. 2 on the 2nd floor and one open car parking space measuring about 135 sq. ft. on the ground floor underneath the proposed building at a total consideration of Rs. 53,75,000 including the costs of car parking space. The evidence on record further goes to show that the complainants have already paid Rs. 50,37,500 and Rs. 36,800 (adjustable with consideration amount) as costs of tiles to the OP Nos. 1 to 3 and as such they are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,37,500. As per terms of the agreement the complainants were liable to pay 10% of balance amount either at the time of delivery of possession or execution of sale deed. Therefore, it is evident that the complainants have fulfilled their promise in terms of the agreement for sale in making payment of consideration amount.

8. It is trite law that the parties are bound by the agreement. A person who signs a document contains certain contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect, in a decision reported in II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=1996 (SLT SOFT) 2155=AIR 1996 SC 2508, Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL World Wide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:

“It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, that normally parties are bound by such contract; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the singed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established. The question we need to consider is whether the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission could go behind the terms of the contract? It is true, as contended by Mr. M. N. Krishanmani, that in an appropriate case, the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. But each case depends upon itown facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to original Civil Court established under the CPC or appropriate State law to have the clams decided between the parties. But when there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by the terms in the contract.”

9. Now, in order to determine the alleged deficiency, let us have a look to the relevant Clauses being Clause Nos. 10 and 15 of agreement for sale which are set out below:

“10. The developer shall complete the construction of the building in all respects and make ready for possession of the said apartment to the purchasers on or before December 2011 subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this agreement.”

“15. The developer shall not be liable for any loss caused by the acts of God or other unforeseen circumstances making it impossible for the developer to construct the said building and to deliver possession of the said flat/apartment to the purchasers on or before the stipulated date. Save and except the aforesaid reason the developer shall be liable to deliver possession of the said flat in the said building to the purchasers on or before the said stipulated date otherwise the developer shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month to the purchasers till the deliver of the flat in the building.”

10. Evidently, the OPs/developer has failed to fulfil their promise in handing over the subject flat within the committed date i.e. within December 2011 and though they subsequently promised to deliver the same latest by 30th April, 2015 but failed to do so.

11. Mr. Ved Sharma, learned Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 to 3/developer has submitted that when the complainants have not made any prayer in the prayer clause of petition of complaint that they are agreeable to pay the balance amount, it cannot be said that the developer was deficient in rendering services. He has further submitted that as the complainants have not come with clean hands the complaint should be dismissed. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 to 3 has placed reliance to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal No. 7539 of 1999, Canara Bank and Others v. Sri Debasis Das and Ors., III (2003) SLT 729.

12. Mr. Barun Prasad, learned Advocate for the complainants, on the other hand, has invited our attention to the payment schedule and submitted that when the complainants have already paid more than 90% of the total consideration amount and the balance amount of 10% is only liable to pay at the time of delivery of possession or execution of sale deed and further the developer did not issue any letter upon the complainants asking them to make payment of balance amount and to take delivery of possession, the OPs must be held deficient in rendering services.

13. Mr. Prabir Basu, learned Advocate for OP No. 4 submits that the OP Nos. 1 to 3/developer should handover the flat after obtaining completion certificate from the competent authority after receipt of balance consideration amount and being landowner the OP No. 4 cannot raise any dispute as to the claim of the complainants.

14. The eagerness of the complainants to purchase the flat is quite apparent. They have obtained loan from a financial institution and the said financial institution disbursed the amount of Rs. 32,25,000 directly in favour of the developer against proper receipt. Moreover, the complainants time and again requested the OPs to handover the subject flat. In this regard, the complainants had also issued a legal notice through their Advocate upon the developer on 8.12.2016 but the developer did not feel necessity to give any reply to the same. In this regard, question No. 15 to 18 put on behalf of the complainants to OP Nos. 1 to 3 and the reply given by OP Nos. 1 to 3 to that effect appears to be noteworthy which are recorded below:

“15. You have stated that due to shortage of fund you could not complete the construction of the building—now say whether the complainants paid the consideration amount as per agreement for sale dated 11.5.2011 or not?

Ans. Yes, due to shortage of fund I could not complete in time and I requested the complainants and other flat holders to make payments of their respective parts/portions to help me out of the crisis.

16. Is it not a fact that as per agreement the complainants are liable to pay 10% of last instalment of the total consideration amount as balance consideration amount to you at the time of delivery of possession of the flat?

Ans. Matter of fact and record.

17. Is it not a fact that to purchase the flat the complainants obtained bank loan from HDFC bank for Rs. 32,25,000 which has been directly disbursed in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1?

Ans. Matter of fact and record.

18. Is it not a fact that in case of delay in delivery the opposite party No. 1 to 3 is liable to pay damages @ Rs. 5,000 p.m. to the complainants till the date of delivery of flat?

Ans. Matter of fact and record.”

15. In the landmark decision reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1993 (SLT SOFT) 657=(1994) 1 SCC 243, Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a person hires the services of a builder, or contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and the same is for consideration, it is a “ service” as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and the inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service. The plea taken by the developer that due to financial stringency they could not complete the construction is not acceptable because when the parties have entered into an agreement with open eyes after evaluating its pros and cons, they must fulfil their promise to keep respect to the terms of agreement. The decision referred by the learned Advocate for OP Nos. 1 to 3 in the case of Canara Bank and Ors. (supra), does not appear to be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this case because in the said case the question came up for consideration the scope and ambit of Regulations 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Moreover, I have failed to understand how it can be said that the complainants being intending purchaser have lodged the complaint with unclean hands after expiry of committed date of delivery of possession. Apparently, when the developer has failed to keep their promise in terms of the agreement for sale, certainly they are deficient in rendering services within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

16. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to some reliefs. In my view, a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to deliver possession in habitable condition after obtaining Completion Certificate from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs. 3,37,5

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

00 will meet the ends of justice. As per terms of the agreement, on account of failure on the part of the developer to deliver possession within December 2011, they are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 per month from January 2012 till the date of actual delivery of possession. Under compelling circumstances, the complainants have to lodge the complaint for which they are entitled to litigation costs which we quantify at Rs. 20,000. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed on contest with the following directions: (i) The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to handover the possession of the flat as mentioned in the Second Schedule to the agreement for sale dated 11.5.2011 in favour of complainants within 90 days from the date after receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs. 3,37,500; (ii) The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to obtain Completion Certificate from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and to handover an authenticate copy of the same to the complainants within 90 days from date; (iii) The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 per month from January 2012 till the date of delivery of possession in favour of complainants in terms of agreement; (iv) The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs. 20,000 to the complainants as costs of litigation; (v) The above payments in terms of the above order shall be made within 90 days from date. Complaint allowed.
O R