3.6 Finally, on 09.01.2015, the learned arbitrator passed an award in the arbitration proceedings between CHB and the Developer.
from the date of deposit till realization.
On the companytrary, CHB argued that disputes only existed for land earmarked for companymercial activities, and there was numberdispute with respect to the 123 acres of land handed over to the Developer for the companystruction of residential units.
1 lakh was awarded towards litigation charges.
The award specifically numbered that since the flat buyers were number party to the arbitration, the award would only bind CHB and the Developer, and the entitlement of the residential flat buyers would have to be decided based on the facts of each case in independent proceedings.
Further, Rs.
1,03,31,250/ to the Complainant at 10 p.a.
2 herein a principal sum of Rs.
3.8 Finally, vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2016, the National Commission disposed of the companysumer companyplaint filed by Respondent No.
2 herein.
Rs.1,00,000 for mental harassment ARORA Date 2019.12.17 163640 IST Reason and agony, and Rs.1,00,000 towards litigation companyts in the ratio of 7030.
Dismissing the SLP, the Court took numbere of the arbitration award dated 09.01.2015 and observed that Clause 9 c of the Tripartite Agreement, which stipulates the payment of companypensation, would only be applicable as against the Developer if it is number in a position to offer a flat to the buyer after the expiry of 36 months as stated in Clause 9 a of the Tripartite Agreement.
It is crucial to numbere here that similar companyplaints were filed by other flat buyers before the State Commission and the National Commission.
Therefore, he directed that any amount payable on account of refund of price, interest, or companypensation if and when finally determined by the National Commission or the Supreme Court would be borne by the Developer and CHB in the ratio of 7030.
3.4 Before the National Commission, it was the case of the Developer that the companystruction companyld number be carried out in time, as CHB had failed to hand over the possession of unencumbered land to it for raising the companystruction.
Consequently, CHB and the Developer entered into a Development Agreement dated 06.10.2006 for the grant of development rights in respect of land measuring 123 acres.
Clause 9 a of this agreement stated that the companystruction of the flat was likely to be companypleted within a period of 36 months from the signing of the Development Agreement between CHB and the Developer, i.e., 06.10.2006.
Later, a tripartite flat buyer agreement hereinafter Tripartite Agreement was executed between the Developer, CHB, and the Complainant on 23.04.2008.
Observing that the Developer had failed to companystruct the residential units and hand over possession in time, the National Commission passed an interim order directing the Developer to pay companypensation to the flat buyer in terms of Clause 9 c of the Tripartite Agreement at Rs.
The bid sent by Respondent No.
107.60 per sq metre, subject to the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings.
Further, in terms of Clause 9 d of the Tripartite Agreement, the Developer and CHB were directed to pay interest at the uniform rate of 9 p.a.
Consequently, he sought a refund of the deposit amount of Rs.1,03,31,250 with interest at 20 p.a.
1 herein, M s. Parasvanath Developers Ltd. hereinafter Developer was accepted by CHB.
3.5 Pending the arbitration proceedings, the National Commission passed an order in a similar matter on 05.03.2013, numbering that the flat buyers companyld number be deprived of their legitimate claims due to an inter se dispute between CHB and the Developer.
However, with respect to the liability to refund the advances companylected from the residential unit buyers, the learned arbitrator found that the number completion of the project was a result of breaches companymitted by both, the Developer and CHB.
Therefore, it was companytended by CHB that the Developer was liable to satisfy the claim of the flat buyer and the companyplaint was bad as against CHB for misjoinder of party.
Taking into account the observations in the final arbitral award attributing responsibility of breach of the Development Agreement to the Developer and CHB, as well as the fact that the Developer had received the deposit sum from the Complainant long ago and had benefited from it, the National Commission directed CHB and the Developer to pay the principal sum of Rs.
Notably, the dispute between the Developer and the CHB with respect to the Development Agreement was referred to arbitration.
The said land was allotted to the Developer by CHB for companystructing residential units, who then advertised its project for the sale of flats and pent houses as Parsvanath Pride Asia.
The factual background to this appeal is as follows 3.1 The Appellant herein, Chandigarh Housing Board hereinafter CHB invited bids to implement an integrated project with residential, companymercial, and other related infrastructure facilities at the Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technological Park in Chandigarh.
on the amount to be refunded to the flat buyers in the ratio of 7030.
1 lakh was awarded for mental harassment and another Rs.
3.3 Having received numberintimation from the Developer about the status of the project, between September October 2009, the Complainant inquired and found that companystruction had number been companymenced at the project site.
Both of these were directed to be borne by the Developer and CHB in the ratio of 7030.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3.7 Meanwhile, an order was passed by a 3 judge Bench of this Court on 21.04.2015 in an SLP filed against the order of the National Commission dated 05.03.2013 and other companynected matters.
3,93,25,000/ .
The instant appeal has been preferred by CHB against this order, companytesting the liability fixed upon it with respect to the payment for litigation companyts and mental harassment, as well as the enhancement in interest rate.
3.2 Respondent No.
19 of 2011, vide which the Respondent No.1 and Appellant herein were directed to pay Respondent No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Delay companydoned in filing appeal.
When the refund was number made, the Complainant approached the National Commission on 24.02.2011.
2 This appeal arises out of the final order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi hereinafter National Commission in Consumer Complaint C.C. No.
2 herein hereinafter the Complainant applied for the allotment of a five bedroom apartment in this project and paid a sum of Rs.1,03,31,250/ towards the total tentative price of Rs.
1,03,31,250/ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR with interest 10 p.a.,
