THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTD versus THE GENERAL SECRETARY (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL GARDEN RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION on 28 September 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 12 S.C.R.

ATHE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA)M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTD.

v.

THE GENERAL SECRETARY (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA)ROYAL GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

B(Civil Appeal No. 2998 of 2010)

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021

[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.24A(1) – Opposite partyCconstructed apartments complex and offered them for sale in whichpurchasers were put in possession – complainant-purchasers of flatsformed a registered association – On 15.11.2003, complainantentered into an agreement with the opposite party for taking overthe maintenance of the apartment complex – In 2007, complainantfiled a consumer complaint before the National Commission seekingDreliefs from the opposite party – National Commission allowed thecomplaint partly – Aggrieved opposite party filed instant appealraising objection as to limitation and challenging the reliefs grantedby National Commission – Held: s.24A(1) of the Act of 1986prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on whichEthe cause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint –The opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of thecomplex to the complainant under Agreement dated 15.11.2003 –There were specific obligations yet to be performed by the oppositeparty in relation to certain services – Under the agreement, differenttimelines were prescribed for different obligations – Certain worksFwere continued up to the year 2005 – The affidavit in evidencefiled by the opposite party and bills established that the cause ofaction continued at least till December, 2005 – Complaint beforethe National Commission was filed in February, 2007 – Therefore,National Commission was right in rejecting the objection relatingGto limitation – National commission had appointed a localCommissioner to inspect the facilities relatable to the reliefs claimedin the complaint – Commissioner examined each one of the itemsand found that they were not operational on date – If all the serviceshad been handed over in fully functional state, the opposite party H

THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC.

should have taken an acknowledgment in writing from thecomplainant – Hence, the reliefs granted by the National commissionin favour of the complainant warrant no interference – However,possession of the common amenities were handed over tocomplainant 18 years ago, it is impossible to compel opposite partyto make such facilities fully operational at this distance of time –Accordingly, in the interests of justice the order of the NationalCommission modified in such a manner (i) that the complainantAssociation shall receive in full and final settlement, the depositnow lying in the Registry of this court, towards adequatecompensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by theNational Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directedinter alia to hand over possession of the club house to thecomplainant.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the dateon which the cause of action has arisen for the admission of acomplaint, by the District Forum, State Commission or theNational Commission. In the case on hand, the opposite partyhanded over the work of maintenance of the complex to thecomplainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. As seen fromthe preamble to the Agreement, the Agreement covered commonessential services such as generators, lifts, tubewell, watersoftening plant, electric substation, cabling, fire fighting system,pipelines, swimming pool, health and fitness centre, parking,clubhouse, water supply, drainage/sewerage system, horticulture,water tanks/pumps and lawns/parks. But different timelines wereprescribed under the said Agreement for different obligationsstill remaining to be performed by the opposite party, towardsthe purchasers of flats. The last of such timeline was indicated tobe 31.03.2004. [Paras 12,13][494-B-E]

2. There were specific obligations to be performed by theopposite party under the said Agreement, in relation to certainservices. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaintcontinued even after the date of the Agreement namely15.11.2003. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite partyand the aforesaid bills establish that the cause of action continued

ABC

DEF

G

H

Aat least till December, 2005. The complaint before the NationalCommission was filed in February, 2007. Therefore, the NationalCommission was right in rejecting the objection relating tolimitation. [Paras 14, 15, 17][494-E-F; 495-C, E]

3. The reliefs granted by the National ConsumerBCommission related to water softening plant, firefighting, secondhealth club equipment, second swimming pool and space for clubhouse in Eden Tower were based on the Report of the localCommissioner. The Commissioner appointed by the NationalCommission was an architect. The architect examined each oneof the items and not only found that they were not operational onCdate but also found, (i) that the equipment for the water softeningplant was incomplete, ineffective and inadequate; (ii) that thefirefighting equipments were not in operation due to incompletecommissioning of the system as a whole and that even the firesafety certificate dated 05.11.2001 noted down the same; (iii) thatDwhile the first health club in the basement of the Tower BlueHeaven was fully furnished and functional, the second health clubwas not adequately furnished though the civil works are complete;(iv) that the second swimming pool was not complete andoperational, as the filtration plant was non- functional and thepump was removed after installation and that even the changeErooms and showers have not been provided for; and (v) that in sofar as the club house in the basement of Eden tower is concernedit was kept under lock and key by the opposite party and found tohave been used as a store for keeping various building materials.Hence, this Court was not convinced that the reliefs granted by FNational Commission in favour of the complainant warrant anyinterference. [Paras 19, 22][495-F-G; 496-D-G]

4. However, the possession of the common amenities werehanded over by the opposite party to the complainant Association18 years ago (under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003), it mayGnot be possible at this distance of time to compel the oppositeparty to make those facilities/systems at relief clauses 2, 3, 4, 5and 6, fully operational now. Therefore, interests of justice willbe met if the order of the National Commission is modified insuch a manner (i) that the complainant Association shall receivein full and final settlement, the deposit now lying in the RegistryH

THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC.

of this court, towards adequate compensation for the reliefs thatthey are held entitled to by the National Commission; and (ii)that the opposite party is directed to remove all building materialstored in the club house in the basement of Tower Eden andhand over possession of the club house to the complainant.[Paras 31, 32][498-E-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2998of 2010.

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in ConsumerComplaint No.9 of 2007.

With

Civil Appeal No.4085 of 2010.

Rahul Sharma, Hardeep Singh Anand, Iqram Govind Singh, Advs.

for the Appellant.

Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for theRespondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Both the consumer (who was the complainant) as well as theopposite party before the National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, have come up with these appeals, the former aggrieved bythe rejection of some of the reliefs sought and the latter, challenging thereliefs granted in favour of the consumer.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

3. A residential apartment complex was promoted by M/s PadminiInfrastructure Developers (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘theopposite party’), on a land allotted by New Okhla DevelopmentAuthority (‘NOIDA’ for short). It appears that the opposite partyconstructed about 282 apartments and offered them for sale. Thepurchasers were put in possession during the period from 1998-2001,but the completion certificate itself was issued only in December, 2001.

4. The purchasers of flats formed themselves into an associationknown as Royale Garden Residents Welfare Association and got itregistered on 30.09.2003 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5. The Residents Welfare Association entered into an agreementon 15.11.2003 with the opposite party for taking over the maintenanceof the apartment complex. Thereafter, the Residents Welfare Association((hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’), filed a consumercomplaint in Complaint No.9 of 2007 before the National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission.B6. The reliefs sought by the complainant before the NationalCommission were as follows:- A

“1.to pay the monthly maintenance charges for unsold flatsamounting to Rs. 9,05,810/-

2. to complete the water softening plant and make itoperational.

C

3. to complete fire fighting equipments and make the sameoperational and to obtain safe working certificate fromFire Safety Department of NOIDA and handover thesame to the Complainant.

D

4. to furnish and equip a second health club for whichspace is available in half portion of basement of TowerBlue Heaven-2.

5. to complete a second swimming pool and get cementplastered and white washed the stilts.

E

6. to provide furnished space for a, Club House in thebasement of Eden Tower which is existing but locked.

7. to get the rented portion of the terrace (roof) vacatedmeant for the resident of Tower Eden of the Complainantrented out by the Opposite Party to HUTCH (P) LimitedFand earned rent after on 15.11.2003 to be returned toRWA with 24% interest.

8. not to sell or rent out the remaining flats about 45 tillthe facilities mentioned above are provided to theComplainant.

G

9. to direct the OP not be sell stilt and open car parkingto future or present purchasers.

10. to pay the cost to the Complaint and damages forharassment mental torture, agony etc. caused to theComplainant by the OP.

H

THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

11. to pass any other or further orders which this AugustCommission deems fit in the circumstances of the caseto meet the ends of justice.”

7. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party both on meritsand on the ground of limitation. The opposite party also claimed that theAgreement dated 15.11.2003, entered into with the complainant containedan arbitration clause and that whatever facilities/amenities were promisedat the time of promotion of the complex, have been put in place.

8. The National Commission by its interim order dated 04.06.2008,appointed a local Commissioner, to inspect the systems/facilities relatableto the reliefs claimed in prayer clause nos. 2 to 6 of the complaint and tosubmit a report. The said Commissioner submitted a report on 08.07.2008after making a local inspection, in the presence of the representatives ofboth the parties.

9. Accepting the report of the local Commissioner and overrulingthe contention of the opposite party regarding limitation, the NationalCommission allowed the complaint partly by an order dated 05.01.2010.The operative part of the order of the Consumer Commission reads asfollows:

“Consequently, complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- with direction to the opposite party to make thesystems/facilities as at Sl. Nos. 2,3,4,5 and 6 of the prayerclause of the complaint operational/complete and to obtainand supply fire safety certificate of the complex to thecomplainant association within ten weeks from today. Theopposite party will submit a report within two weeks thereafterfrom an independent Architect certifying that the systems/facilities in question have been fully made operational/complete by the opposite party. In the event of not makingoperational/complete the systems/facilities referred to abovewithin the time allowed, the opposite party will pay through ademand draft the costs thereof as mentioned in aforesaidreport dated 8.07.2008 within two weeks from after the expiryof 12 weeks time to the complainant association.”

10. Aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, theopposite party (builder), has come up with one appeal in C.A.No.2998of 2010. Aggrieved by the refusal of the National Commission to grant A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Athe reliefs as per prayer clause nos. 1, 7, 8, 9 & 10, the consumer-complainant has come up with another appeal in C.A.No.4085 of 2010.

11. As observed earlier, the consumer complaint was contestedby the opposite party both on merits and on the ground of limitation.Since it is easy to deal with the objection relating to limitation withoutBmuch ado, we shall take it up first.

12. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on which thecause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint, by the DistrictForum, State Commission or the National Commission. In the case onChand, the opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of thecomplex to the complainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. Asseen from the preamble to the Agreement, the Agreement coveredcommon essential services such as generators, lifts, tube-well, watersoftening plant, electric substation, cabling, fire fighting system, pipelines,swimming pool, health and fitness centre, parking, club-house, waterDsupply, drainage/sewerage system, horticulture, water tanks/pumps andlawns/parks.

13. But different timelines were prescribed under the saidAgreement for different obligations still remaining to be performed bythe opposite party, towards the purchasers of flats. The last of suchEtimeline was indicated to be 31.03.2004.

14. There were specific obligations to be performed by the oppositeparty under the said Agreement, in relation to certain services. It may beuseful in this regard to extract clauses 13, 14 and 19 of the Agreementas follows:- F

“13. The FIRST PARTY shall bear the contractualobligations of lift, generator, health club and equipments fittedat swimming pool. FIRST PARTY shall also bear themaintenance of these equipments till these contracts areconcluded. FIRST PARTY shall bear any/all expenses onmaintenance/repair/replacement of these equipments.

G

14. To FIRST PARTY shall make the softening plant andtube will in working condition and hand it over to SECONDPARTY separately on or before 31.1.2004. The FIRST PARTYshall also bring the fire fighting Equipments/generators in H

THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

working condition and hand it over to the SECOND PARTYseparately on or before 31.12.2003.

…

… …

19. The FIRST PARTY shall construct the second HealthClub and second swimming pool on or before 31.3.2004 andprovide space for Club house in one of the basements for theresidents as promised and assured at the time of selling theapartments on or before 31.12.2003.”

15. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaint, as per theabove clauses continued even after the date of the Agreement namely15.11.2003.

16. In the affidavit filed by the local Manager of the oppositeparty by way of evidence, it was admitted that certain works in relationto fire-fighting equipment continued up to the year 2005. In fact, theopposite party filed certain bills, which were dated 27.02.2005, 22.04.2005,01.05.2005, 19.07.2005, 29.10.2005 and 12.12.2005, to show that theopposite party was honest and diligent in carrying out their obligations.

17. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party and theaforesaid bills establish that the cause of action continued at least tillDecember, 2005. The complaint before the National Commission wasfiled in February, 2007. Therefore, the National Commission was right inrejecting the objection relating to limitation.

18. Coming to the merits, let us first take up the challenge tocorrectness of the reliefs granted by the National Commission in favourof the complainant, as the appeal filed by the opposite party appears tobe first in point of time.

19. The reliefs granted by the National Consumer Commissionrelated to water softening plant, fire-fighting, second health clubequipment, second swimming pool and space for club house in EdenTower. These reliefs were granted by the National Commission on thebasis of the Report of the local Commissioner.

20. It appears that opposite party filed objections to the report ofthe local Commissioner, contending inter alia, (i) that the water softeningplant was fully functional when the complex was taken over by thecomplainant association; (ii) that any deficiency or defect relating to thefire-fighting equipment is wholly attributable to the lack of maintenance

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand wrongful practices adopted by the complainant association; (iii) thatthey are not contractually liable to provide a second health club and thefinding of the local Commissioner that one of the health clubs is fullyfunctional and in good condition has to be accepted; and (iv) that thesecond swimming pool was completed and made operational by theopposite party, but what remained was the filling up of water afterBfiltration, which was the job of the maintenance agency.

21. Interestingly the affidavit of objections to the Report of thelocal Commissioner, filed on behalf of the opposite party on 06.08.2008,covered only the findings relating to, (i) water softening plant; (ii) fire-fighting equipment; (iii) second health club; and (iv) second swimmingCpool, but did not cover the finding relating to the liability of the oppositeparty to provide furnished space for a club house in the basement ofEden Tower (relatable to relief no.6 of the complaint). However, theaffidavit covered the claim of the complainant for maintenance charges,though the local Commissioner had nothing to do with the same.D

22. The Commissioner appointed by the National Commission wasan architect by name Amit Bahl. When he carried out the inspection, 4persons representing the opposite party, which included the advocate ofthe opposite party and the deponent to the affidavit of objections werepresent. The architect examined each one of the items and not onlyEfound that they were not operational on date but also found, (i) that theequipment for the water softening plant was incomplete, ineffective andinadequate; (ii) that the fire-fighting equipments were not in operationdue to incomplete commissioning of the system as a whole and thateven the fire safety certificate dated 05.11.2001 noted down the same;(iii) that while the first health club in the basement of the Tower BlueFHeaven-2 was fully furnished and functional, the second health clubwas not adequately furnished though the civil works are complete; (iv)that the second swimming pool was not complete and operational, as thefiltration plant was non- functional and the pump was removed afterinstallation and that even the change rooms and showers have not beenGprovided for; and (v) that in so far as the club house in the basement ofEden tower is concerned it was kept under lock and key by the oppositeparty and found to have been used as a store for keeping various buildingmaterials.23. In the light of the aforesaid findings by an independent architectHappointed by the National Commission it is not open to the opposite THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

party to create a façade as though all essential services and amenitieswere handed over in a fully functional state. If all the aforesaid serviceshad been handed over in a fully functional state, the opposite party shouldhave taken an acknowledgment in writing from the complainant. In thealternative, the opposite party should have insisted upon an appropriateprovision in the Agreement dated 15.11.2003.

24. As noted by the Commissioner, even the fire safety certificatedated 05.11.2001 states that though the majority of the equipment havebeen satisfactorily installed, some equipment have been removed andstored for security purposes and that the inference therefore is that thesystem never got commissioned.

25. It is not impossible for an experienced architect to find outwhether the condition in which the aforesaid amenities and serviceswere found on the date of the inspection, was entirely due to lack ofmaintenance or due to non-commissioning or incomplete commissioning.

26. As noted by the National Commission, the affidavit of objectionsfiled on behalf of the opposite party to the Report of the localCommissioner does not deal with the cost of estimates indicated by theCommissioner in his Report. In addition, the affidavit of objections doesnot even deal with the finding relating to the club house at Eden Tower,said to have been kept under lock and key by the opposite party forstoring building materials. The very fact that at the time of inspection bythe local Commissioner, the possession of the club house in Eden Towerwas with the opposite party, goes to show that the opposite party wasstill retaining control of at least some part or certain services in thecomplex, perhaps due to the fact that there were about 45 unsold flats.

27. In view of the above, we are not convinced that the reliefsgranted by the National commission in favour of the complainant warrantany interference. Therefore, the appeal in C.A. No.2998 of 2010 is liableto be dismissed.

28. But before we do that, we should take note of the fact that asper the operative portion of the order of the National Commission (whichwe have extracted elsewhere) the opposite party is obliged to make thesystems/facilities at prayer clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the complaint, fullyoperational/complete and they are also obliged to obtain a certificate ofcompletion from an independent architect. If the opposite party failed todo so within the time stipulated by the National Commission, the opposite A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aparty was obliged to pay the cost as estimated by the Commissioner inhis Report dated 08.07.2008.

29. The costs estimated by the local Commissioner in his Reportdated 08.07.2008 are as follows :- B

C

30. While ordering notice in C.A.No.2998 of 2010, on 29.03.2010,this Court granted stay of operation of the impugned order on conditionthat the opposite party–builder deposit Rs.60,00,000/- within 8 weeks.Subsequently, the order was modified on 14.05.2010, permitting theopposite party to deposit the sum in two equal instalments, the firstDinstalment before 22.05.2010 and 2[nd] instalment before 15.07.2010. Itappears that the amount has been accordingly deposited and the amounthas been invested in a Fixed Deposit which is renewed from time totime by the orders of this Court.

31. In view of the fact that the possession of the common amenitiesEwere handed over by the opposite party to the complainant Association18 years ago (under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003), it may not bepossible at this distance of time to compel the opposite party to makethose facilities/systems at relief clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, fully operationalnow. The cost of estimate which works out to approximately Rs.1.16crores, includes within itself the cost of fire fighting equipment and thisFconstitutes the major component (it works out to Rs. 83 lakhs). As seenfrom the Commissioner’s Report, the mistake committed by the oppositeparty was in removing a part of the equipment but not putting themback. This finding is as per the fire safety certificate. Therefore, it maynot be appropriate to ask the opposite party to bear the entire burden.G

32. Therefore, taking into account the overall picture, we are ofthe considered view that interests of justice will be met if the order ofthe National Commission is modified in such a manner (i) that thecomplainant Association shall receive in full and final settlement, thedeposit now lying in the Registry of this court, towards adequatecompensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the NationalH

THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directed to remove allbuilding material stored in the club house in the basement of TowerEden and hand over possession of the club house to the complainant.

33. Now coming to the appeal CA No.4085 of 2010 filed by thecomplainant against the refusal of the reliefs in prayer clause nos.1, 7, 8,9 and 10, we think that the National Commission was justified in rejectingthose reliefs. The claim for monthly maintenance charges for the unsoldflats, amounting to Rs.9,05,810/- sought as per prayer clause no.1, wasmade by the complainant on the basis of clause 10 of the Agreementdated 15.11.2003 which reads as follows:

“10. The FIRST PARTY agrees to pay to the SECOND PARTYthe monthly maintenance charges @ 50 paise per square feetfor the unsold flats w.e.f. 16.11.2003. FIRST PARTY shallmake the advance payment for 6 months within 7 days ofsigning of the agreement. Subsequently these charges will bepaid yearly in advance.”

34. The averments relating to the relief claimed at prayer clauseno.1 are found in paragraph 16 of the complaint which reads as follows:- “16. That the amount of such advance payment upto31.12.2006 is Rs.619568/- approx. an advance for the year2007 comes to Rs.286242/-. Thus the OP has to make thetotal payment amounting to Rs. 905810/- approx. with interest@ 24% for the delayed period for which OP had agreed videagreement dated 15.11.2003 Clause No.6 last two lines.”

35. Though the National Commission did not deal with the reliefclaimed at prayer clause No.1 in sufficient detail and the NationalCommission did not also provide cogent reasons for rejecting the relief,we find that the complainant may not be entitled to the said relief. Thereare two reasons as to why we say so. The first reason is that thecomplainant did not provide detailed calculations about the plinth area ofthe unsold flats, the period during which they remained unsold and themanner in which the amount indicated in para 16 of the complaint wasarrived at. In any case the payments were to be made under clause 10of the agreement, first within seven days of the agreement in respect ofthe advance payment for six months and thereafter by way of annualpayments in advance. Therefore, a major portion of the claim for moneywas obviously barred by limitation when the complaint was filed. Moreover,

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe opposite party raised a dispute about the quantum and asserted inpara 16 of their reply before the National Commission that what wasdue was only Rs.232750/-. Thus, the question became a disputed questionof fact on which both parties did not lead sufficient evidence. Therefore,the rejection of the claim at prayer clause No.1 was legally correct.

B36. The relief claimed at prayer clause no.8 is to direct the oppositeparty not to sell or rent out the unsold flats till the facilities mentioned inprayer clause nos.2 to 6 are provided. By its very nature, this relief is inthe nature of an interim relief and, hence, was rightly rejected by theNational Commission in the final judgment.C37. The relief claimed in prayer clause no.9 relates to stilt andopen car parking. There was no evidence before the National Commissionto grant such a relief and, hence, the refusal to grant the relief mentionedin prayer clause no.9 is in order.

38. The claim for costs and damages for harassment, mentalDtorture, agony etc., made in prayer clause no.10 was not granted by theNational Commission, and rightly so, in view of the fact that after handingover the common amenities under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003, theopposite party continued to carry out at least some works. This is whythe complaint was lodged in 2007. Therefore, we find no reason to grantthe relief prayed for in prayer clause no.10.E

39. That leaves us with the relief claimed in prayer clause no.7.This was for a direction to the opposite party to vacate the tenantoccupying the terrace of Tower Eden. According to the complainant,the terrace of Tower Eden was let out by the opposite party to a company,leaving the residents of Tower Eden without a terrace for common use.FBut the relief of eviction involves a third party and hence the Nationalcommission rightly left it to the complainant to pursue the remedy in anappropriate Forum.

40. Thus, we find that the refusal of the National Commission togrant the reliefs mentioned in prayer clause nos.1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 warrantGno interference. Therefore, the appeal of the complainant in CA No.4085of 2010 is liable to be dismissed.

41. Accordingly the appeal of the consumer-complainant in C.A.No. 4085 of 2010 is dismissed. The appeal of the builder-opposite partyin C.A. No. 2998 of 2010 is partly allowed, modifying and substitutingHthe judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS(I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYALGARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

dated 05.01.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 9 of 2007, to the followingeffect:

The complainant shall be entitled to all told monetarycompensation in a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs, now lying in depositwith the Registry of this court, together with the interestaccrued thereon, in lieu of the reliefs sought in prayer clauses2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint. The opposite party shall,within two weeks, remove all building material stored by themin the club house in the basement of Tower Eden and handover possession of the club house to the complainant. Thecomplaint shall stand dismissed in all other respects. No costs.

42. The parties are to bear their respective costs in these appeals.The Registry shall liquidate the fixed deposit standing to the credit of theabove appeal and make payment of the proceeds to the complainantnamely, Royal Garden Residents welfare Association. All interlocutoryapplications if any are closed.

Devika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

501A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H